BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 30th day of November, 2005
CD No. 87/2005
M.Sivarao,
S/o Narsinga Rao,
Managing Partner,
Mahalakshmi Plastic Industries,
(Registered Firm), Nandyal, . . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Managing Director,
M/s Kala Mould Machinery (Pvt) Ltd.,
Plot No.157, Gandhi Nagar,
Opp: Bhandari Compound, Kandiveli (West),
Mumbai -400 057. . . . Opposite Party
This complaint coming on 25.11.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri J.Swamy Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool, for complainant and opposite party set exparte, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C. Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of CP Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay Rs.13,96,100/- or to substitute with new machinery with working condition, compensation, costs and any other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complainant s case is that the complainant purchased a Plastic Injecting Moulding Machine from opposite party for Rs.10,40,000/- on 19.5.2004 and the said amount was paid by way of Demand Draft .No. 678108 dt 28.4.2004 for RS.2,00,000/- and another Demand Draft No. 679392 dt 14.5.2004 for Rs. 8,40,000/-. The said machine was installed on 19.6.2004 in the complainant s factory and from the beginning the said machine due to some defects in many parts did not work and could not manufacture any plastic house hold items as intended. Immediately, the complainant contracted opposite party by phone and through letters dt 31.8.2004, 25.10.2004, 12.1.2005, 27.2.2005, 23.2.2005 and 9.3.2005, but there was no response except a false promise of sending a mechanic. Being vexed the complainant got issued legal notice dt 8.4.2005 and second notice by courier, but the said letter are returned as not claimed. The complainant as an accessory and ancillary to the said machine purchased another double colour attachment machinery for Rs 1,04,000/- which is also lying idle. The said loss is the direct result of the defects in the machinery supplied by opposite party, therefore the opposite party is liable to pay cost of the machine or replace with new machine as the said machine is of no use to the complainant as it is not manufacturing plastic house hold items. The conduct of opposite party in not responding to the letters of the complainant, constrained the complainant to file this case before this Forum for redressal.
3. The complainant in support to its case relied on the documents marked as Ex A.1 to A.24 besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments.
4. Inspite of paper publication as to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties did neither appeared before this Forum nor contested the case of the complainant by filling any written version with any defence and there by remained exparte.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
6. The Ex A.1 is the receipt issued by opposite party as to the receipt of DD No. 678108 dt 28.4.2004 for Rs.2,00,000/- and another DD No. 67932 dt 14.5.2004 for Rs. 8,40,000/- from the complainant. The Ex. A.2 is the invoice dt 19.5.2004 issued by opposite party as to the purchase of Plastic Injection Moulding Machine for Rs.10,40,000/- by the complainant. The Ex A.3 is the delivery receipt dt nil issued by Patil Brothers, transport company, Mumbai, as to the payment of freight charges of Rs.21,000/- towards transportation of Plastic Injection Moulding Machine of the complainant from Mumbai to Nandyal. The Ex A.4 to A.9 are the letters along with concerned postal receipts and postal acknowledgements, addressed to opposite party by the complainant, dt 31.8.2004, 25.10.2004, 12.1.2005, 23.2.2005, 27.2.2005 and 9.3.2005, the above letters clearly shows the various defects and problems faced by the complainant during the use of the said machinery and request the opposite party to visit their factory at Nandyal to inspect the said machine thoroughly and so take quick and remedial action, as the defects are increasing in number day by day. As there was no response to the said letters the complainant being vexed with the conduct of opposite party got issued legal notice dt 22.3.2005 (Ex A.10) and another legal notice dt 8.4.2005 (Ex A.11) addressed to opposite party, the same grievance such as after the machine was installed in the premises of complainant s factory, it was not working properly due to some in built defects which could not be rectified, the said defects in the machinery were informed through several phone calls and though several letters in Ex.A4 to A9, but there was no response from opposite party. Inspite of several representations by the complainant there was no reply and there by alleges that the machine supplied by the opposite party is a defective one claiming refund of cost of the machine and other expenses.
7. The Ex. A.12, 13 and 14 are the returned covers addressed to opposite party, by the complainant s counsel the said covers are returned with endorsement refused by addressee (opposite party). The Ex A. 15 is the receipt issued by Shree Sadhna Engineering, Mumbai as to the payment of Rs.1,04,000/- by the complainant. The Ex A.16 is the invoice issued by Shree Sadhna Engineering, Mumbai, as to the purchase of Screw Barrel Housing Plaston for Rs.1,04,000/-.The Ex A.17 is the acknowledgement of Registration of Firms of the complainant s factory at Nandyal dt 18.8.2001. The Ex A.18 is quotation dt 4.2.2005 issued by Tejaswini Machine Tools as to the charges of Rs.15,900/- for Injection Front main plate and repair charges of Injection moulding machine supplied by opposite party. The Ex A.19 dt 2.5.2004 envisages the payment of Rs.24,000/- by the complainant to Mahalaxmi Plastic Industries towards Injection Moulding Machine foundation and machine installation. The Ex A.20 envisages the charges of Rs.6,000/- for unloading Injection Moulding Machine at complainants factory in Nandyal.
8. The Ex. A.21 is the sale (commercial invoice) dt 27.5.2004 issued by Ramakrishna Transformers to the complainant as to the purchase of 160 KVA 11000/433V for Rs.86,000/-. The Ex. A.22 are the bunch of 15 electricity bill receipts issued by CPDC of AP along with calculations as to payment of minimum charges of Rs.87,386-79ps by complainants factory to Electricity Department. The Ex A.23 is the certificate issued by Asst. Divisional Engineer, APCP DLL Nandyal, to certify that an additional load of 75.5 HP was released to complainant s factory and the fixed charges are raised from Rs.2734-76 to Rs.8,819/-and the Ex.A.24 is electricity bill dt 14.10.2005 issued to complainant s factory for Rs.91,599/-.
9. The facts so envisaged in Ex A.1 to A.24 and the complaint averments and the complainant s sworn affidavit averments in reiteration of its case are neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite party and hence, there appears every bonafidies in the claim of the complainant. Thus the non responsive conduct of opposite parties in not responding to the letters of the complainant, and selling machinery to the complainant which has inherent defects and not bothering to rectify the said defects at the request of the complainant is sufficient for the complainant to suffer mental agony and inconvenience and there is deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
10. Now the question is to what quantum of reliefs the complainant is entitle to, for want of substantiating material as to the probable normal business of the complainant, the claim made in para No.8 (9) of the complaint is dis-allowed. The claims made in Para No.8 (1 to 8) of the complaint being supported with relevant bills which are not discredited the said claims are allowed. As the complainant was driven to the Forum by the opposite party for the deficient conduct, the complainant is certainly entitled to the costs of the case. The opposite party is to pay the costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to pay the above awarded amount to the complainant within a month of receipt of this order. In default, the above awarded amount shall be payable by the opposite party with 12percent interest per annum from the date of default till realization.
Dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed to her, corrected and pronounce in the Open Court this the 30th day of November, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Receipt issued by opposite party as to the receipt of DD No.678108 dt
28.4.04 for Rs.2,00,000/- and another DD No. 67932 dt 14.5.2004 for
Rs. 8,40,000/-.
Ex A2 Invoice Dt.19-5-2004.
Ex A3 Delivering receipt of Patil Brothers, Mumbai freight amount of
Rs.21,000/-
Ex A4 Letter, Dt.31-8-2004 addressed to opposite party along with
acknowledgement due and receipt No.3437
Ex A5 Letter, Dt.25-10-2004 addressed to opposite party along with
acknowledgement due and receipt No. 325
Ex A6 Letter, Dt.12-1-2005 addressed to opposite party along with
acknowledgement due and receipt No. 504
Ex A7 Letter, Dt.23-2-2005 addressed to opposite party along with
acknowledgement due and receipt No. 646
Ex A8 Letter, Dt.27-2-2005 addressed to opposite party along with
acknowledgement due and receipt No. 659
Ex A9 Letter, Dt.9-2-2005 addressed to opposite party along with receipt
No.697
Ex A10 Office copy of legal notice Dt.22-3-2005
Ex A11 Office copy of legal notice Dt.8-4-2005.
Ex A.12 Returned (cover) unclaimed with acknowledgement due
Ex A13 Returned (cover) unclaimed with acknowledgement due
Ex A14 Returned (cover) unclaimed by courier
Ex A15 Receipt of Shree SAdhna Engineering, Mumbai Dt.19-5-04
Rs.1,04,000/-
Ex A16 Invoice of Double Colour No.3 Dt.19-5-04 of Shree Sadhna
Engineering.
Ex A17 Acknowledgement of Registration of Firm
Ex A18 Original quotation Dt.4-2-2005 with regard to cost of Front Plate issued
by Tejaswini Machine Tools for Rs.15,900/-
Ex A19 Original receipt of Mahalakshmi Plastic Industries, Dt.2-5-2004 for
Rs.24,000/-
Ex A20 Original receipt of Mahalkshmi Plastic Industries, Dt.22-5-2004,
unloading charges of Rs.6,000/-
Ex A21 Original sale (Commercial Invoice) of Rama Krishna Transformers,
Dt.27- 5-2004 for Rs.86,000/-
Ex A22 Electricity bills from 21-7-2004 to 21-9-2005 (1 to 15 in number along
with calculation sheets.)
Ex A23 Certificate issued by Asst. Divisional Engineer Operation–Sub-Division,
APCPDCL, Nandyal .
Ex A24 Electricity bill payable on or before 14-10-2005 total amount of
Rs.91,599/-
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite party: Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri J. Swamy Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
2. The Managing Director,M/s Kala Mould Machinery (Pvt ) Ltd., Plot No.157,
Gandhi Nagar, Opp: Bhandari Compound, Kandiveli (West),
Mumbai – 400 057.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
