Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/376/2010

Venkateswara Rice Mill - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Latha Transformers - Opp.Party(s)

C.R. Vasantha Kumar

07 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                   Registration of the Complaint:11-10-2010

                                                                                                                           Date of Remand Order:21-12-2011

                                                                                                                                      Date of Order :07-02-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

 

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.N. RAO, M.A., B.L.,

       Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

 

SATURDAY, 07^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

        CONSUMER CASE NO.376/2010

 

 

Between:

Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Rep. by its

Proprietor, Sri.Waddi Chandrasekharam,

S/o late Bhima Raju, Hindu, aged 50 years,

Situate at Radhakrishnapuram Village,

Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

                                                                                       …Complainant

And:

Sri Lalitha Transformers, rep. by its Proprietor,

S.No.42, Industrial Estate, Narasingarao Peta,

Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530 021.

          …Opposite Party

 

This case coming on 23-01-2015 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of SRI C.R.VASANTHA KUMAR, Advocate for the Complainant and of SRI D.SATYA VARMA, Advocate for the Opposite Party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:

 

O  R  D  E  R

(As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The Complainant filed the present complaint against the OP, directing  him to refund Rs.2,10,000/- with interest from 08-02-2010 till the date of its refund, to repay the expenses incurred on account of malfunctioning of the transformer i.e, Rs.1,89,877/- with interest @ 24% p.a., from 11-06-2010 till the date of payment and also to pay interest @ 24% from 03-09-2010 on Rs.1,60,000/- till the date of refund of cost of transformer amount purchased from the OP, a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

2.       The case of the Complainant, in brief is that he is the proprietary concern in order to eak out his livelihood, he started business in the name and style of  “SRI VENKATESWA RICE MILL” and he is also providing employment to many uneducated Rural folk  and initially he had the transformer of 100kva capacity transformer  and when he increased the load capacity, he intended to purchase 160KVA capacity transformer and he was orally informed by the department  people to make his own arrangements for purchase and erection of the transformer he approached the OP during 2009 for purchase of 160kva capacity transformer and at that time, they informed that they do not have it and they are in a position to deliver 250 kva CAPACITY transformer within short time and that difference in the cost of the transformer will be around Rs.40,000/- and it  will be more useful in future on that in view of urgency and necessity he agreed for the same then after quoting the price  and giving 5 years guarantee, he paid an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- from time to time and on that the OP installed the transformer on 24-03-2010 at his rice mill premises through his technician. That subsequent to the installation of the transformer the bill for the month of April, 2010 was served on  him, demanding  for Rs.1,53,096/-  wherein levying a penal charges of Rs.7,855.90ps and 193% LPF surcharge of Rs.80,081.71ps was  claimed  and he immediately informed the same to the OP who informed him to check the capacitors and when they were found OK, the OP stated that he would increase the capacity of the capacitors and even to which he has accepted and the OP  brought  some capacitors but also could not be solved. In spite of OP made several attempts,  the complainant could not rectify the defects  as a result of which he received notice from APEPDCL.,  to a tune of Rs.157810/- was levied  on account of mal functioning of the transformer. In order to rule out the defects in the transfer, OP requested him t have an test transformer accordingly, the department people also fixed a test transformer and thereupon the OP removed the defective transformer and in its place an old transformer with 100kvacapacity  as stop gap arrangement and even after receipt of usage of the transformer, the complainant did not find any problem and the demand notice was also served on him for the month of July 2010 to a tune of Rs.60107/-. Thus the facts clearly indicate the OP has supplied defective transformer as a result of which he sustained financial loss of Rs.1,89,876.99ps.  Hence, this complaint.

3.       The case of the OP denying the material averments of the complaint is that the complainant is not comes under the purview of the Consumer and that he is the proprietor of Sri Lalitha Transformers doing business of repairs and servicing of transformers. At the request of the complainant, he gave a quotation for supply of 25 /A/KVA transformer for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-, it was accepted by the complainant and then he supplied and thereupon the complainant asked the transformer without their knowledge and kept in use without verifying proper precautions. One month after the erection of the transformer, he informed about the penal charges of LPF and then he sent their technicians to check the transformers and found that no proper capacitors were installed and on that, he advised so. Again on the next month, he was informed about the LPF penal charges and then he asked the complainant to sent 250KVA transformers for verification of difficulties, if any, by sending 100kva transformer as the stop gap arrangement and on that the complainant erected 100kva transformer in the place of 250KVA transfer and failed to sent the 250kva transformer to them and kept in usage of 100KVA Transformer. When he used with overload as a result of which, the said transformer was burnt. On that when he demanded for the charges for the repairs of the said transformer, the complainant postponed the payment and finally foisted this false case.     Thus, there is no deficiency of service on their part. For these reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.       To prove the case on behalf of the complainant, he filed his affidavit and he got marked Exhibits A1 to A24 are marked, on behalf of the OP, no documents are marked.

5.       Exhibit A1 is the Original quotation issued by the OP dated 02-12-2009, Exhibit A2 is the Original Receipt issued by OP dated 12-01-2010, Exhibit A3 is the Original receipt issued by OP dated 19-01-20010, Exhibit A4 is the Original receipt issued by OP dated 21-01-20010, Exhibit A5 is the Original receipt issued by OP dated 23-01-2010, Exhibit A6 is the Original receipt issued by OP dated 25-01-20010, Exhibit A7 is the Original receipt issued by OP dated 27-01-20010, Exhibit A8 is the Original receipt issued by OP dated 30-01-20010, Exhibit A9 is the Original receipt issued by OP dated 01-02-20010, Exhibit A10 is the Original receipt issued by OP dated 03-02-2010, Exhibit A11 is the Original receipt issued by OP dated 06-02-20010, Exhibit A12 is the Original receipt issued by OP dated 08-02-2010, Exhibit A13 is the Original Invoice, Exhibit A14 is the Original HT Bill display dated  26-03-2010, Exhibit A15 is the Original Receipt dated 30-03-2010, Exhibit A16 is the Original HT Bill display dated 26-04-2010, Exhibit A17 is the Original letter to AE, APEPDCL dated 06-05-2010, Exhibit A18 is the original letter to A.e. APEPDCL dated 10-05-2010, Exhibit A19 is the Original receipt dated 24-05-2010, Exhibit 20 is the original HT Bill display dated 26-05-2010, Exhibit A21 is the Original Receipt dated 11-06-2010, Exhibit A22 is the Original HT Bill Display, dated 26-06-2010, Exhibit 23 is the original receipt dated 30-06-2010, Exhibit A24 is the Photocopy of Lawyer’s Notice dated 28-08-2010.

6.       OP alone filed his written arguments.

7.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

8.       Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

9.       Before dealing with the case, it is relevant for us to state that initially, the present complaint filed against Sri.Lalitha Transformers and obtained exparte order on 31-12-2010 and filed E.A.No.54/11 and on that FA 908/2011 filed before the Honourable AP State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and the same is allowed by setting aside the order of this Forum and remanded and thereafter the OP filed their counter.  The dispute in controversy is the transformer which was supplied by the Ops, the bills covered under A14 and A16 and A22, A22 levying  surcharge and penal charge was due to supplying of the defective transformer to the complaint by the OP is to be seen.

10.     According to OP, he is the Proprietor of the Sri Lalitha Transformers by doing the business of repairs and servicing of transformers and at the request of the complainant, they issued a quotation for supply of 250 KVA Distribution Transformer for the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- and on receipt of the quotation, the complainant accepted the same and the OP had supplied the 250 KVA transformer at the premises of the complainant and subsequently the complainant himself erected the transformer without the knowledge of the OP and kept in usage without following the proper precautions and one month after the erection of the transformer, the complainant informed about the penal charges of LPF then the OP sent his technicians  to check the transformer and found that no proper capacitors were installed and advised the complainant to install the capacitors and again on the next month, the complainant informed about the LPF penal charges and then the OP asked the complainant to send 250 KVA Transformer for verification of defects if any by sending 100 KVA Transformer as the stop gap arrangement and the complainant erected the 100 KVA Transformer the place of 250 KVA Transformer and failed to send the 250 KVA Transformer to the OP and keep in usage of 100 KVA Transformer and caused it burnt and on that when the OP demanded for the charges for the repair of the burnt of the 100 KVA Transformer, the complainant postponed the payment and finally foisted this false complaint before this forum with an oblique motive and the OP further stated that there is no deficiency of service on his part  as he sent his technicians immediately after information of the complainant and he had arranged another transformer as stop gap arrangement which was also admitted by the complainant in the complaint.

11.     The complainant has not filed any document before this forum to show that the alleged LPF charges were incurred due to the transformer supplied by the OP. Perusal of Ex A17 letter dated 06-05-2010 and Ex.A18 letter dated 10-05-2010, it can be held that they are self document prepared by the complainant without proof for the purpose to file this false complaint before this Forum. Therefore, this cannot be looked into. Exhibit A17 representation dated 06-05-2010, the complainant got installed departmental transformer, vide Exhibit 18 representation dated 10-05-2010 the complainant retained the departmental transformer and Ex A 20 HT Bill dated 26-05-2010 was issued for Rs.1,57,810/- for the   period from 24-04-2010 to 24-06-2010, in which a sum of Rs.80,080-93 towards LPF surcharges. One cannot understand how the LPF surcharges  can be imposed during the period when departmental transformer was used for a period of 19 days out of 30 days. The concerned Assistant Enginner operations is the person to speak about them, but the complainant unfortunately, failed to place his evidence affidavit. Exhibit A24 Lawyer’s Notice dated 28-08-2010 was never served on the OP and the complainant has not filed any postal acknowledgement to prove that Ex 24 legal notice was served on the OP and as such the alleged mentioning of the complainant in his affidavit as well as in the complaint that “though the OP acknowledged the receipt of the notice did not choose to give any reply nor complied with the terms of notice is also not correct.  Ex.A24 notice addressed to Sri Lalitha Transformers, which is not the OP. Therefore, it can be held that the notice was duly served against OP. But there was no response is not correct. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  For these reasons, the complaint filed by the complainant, deserves to be dismissed.

12.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 7^th day of January, 2015.

 

     Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                      Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                         MALE MEMBER                          PRESIDENT          

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

EXHIBITS	DATE	DESCRIPTION
A-1	02-12-2009	Original Quotation issued by Opposite Party
A-2	12-01-2010	Original Receipt issued by OP
A-3	19-01-2010	Original Receipt issued by OP
A-4	21-01-2010	Original Receipt issued by OP
A-5	23-01-2010	Original Receipt issued by OP
A-6	25-01-2010	Original Receipt issued by OP
A-7	27-01-2010	Original Receipt issued by OP
A-8	30-01-2010	Original Receipt issued by OP
A-9	01-02-2010	Original Receipt issued by OP
A-10	03-02-2010	Original Receipt issued by OP
A-11	06-02-2010	Original Receipt issued by OP
A-12	08-02-2010	Original Receipt issued by OP
A-13	Nil	Original Invoice
A-14	26-03-2010	Original HT Bill display
A-15	30-03-2010	Original Receipt
A-16	26-04-2010	Original HT Bill Display
A-17	06-05-2010	Original letter to A.E. APEPDC Limited
A-18	10-05-2010	Original letter to A.E. APEPDC Limited
A-19	24-05-2010	Original Receipt
A-20	26-05-2010	Original HT Bill Display
A-21	11-06-2010	Original Receipt
A-22	26-06-2010	Original HT Bill display
A-23	30-06-2010	Original Receipt
A-24	28-08-2010	Photocopy of Lawyer’s Notice

 

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:-           -NIL

 

     Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                  Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                     MALE MEMBER                 PRESIDENT