State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
C.Ramesh vs Vijayalakshmi Enterprises on 22 November, 2007
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR. PRESENT:- Sri P.V.Nageswara Rao, M.A., L.L.M., President (F.A.C.) Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., Member, Thursday, the 22nd day of November, 2007 C.C.NO.70/2006 Between: C.Ramasesh S/o C.Ramachandraiah D.No.1/305, Vasavi Temple Street Bukkapatnam Village & Mandal Anantapur District. Complainant . Vs. 1. M/s Vijayalakshmi Enterprises rep. by its Proprietor D.No.3/118-3, Bheemreddynagar Colony Boduppal, Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad 39. 2. M/s Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., rep. by its Area Manager, 216 to 228, United Building Complex, 2nd floor, B-Block, S.D.Road Secunderabad 500 003. . Respondents/ Opposite Parties This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Krishna Swamy Kumar, advocate for the complainant, Sri P.Sreekanth, advocate for the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party was set-exparte and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following: O R D E R
1. The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-
The complainant purchased one Kirloskar Diesel Generator of 15 K.V.A. for Rs.1,50,000/-with a condition of door delivery and paid the amount in two demand drafts on State Bank of Hyderabad, Hyderabad in favour of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party sent a Generator of 10 K.V.A. The 1st opposite party agreed to replace with generator of 15 K.V.A. after deliberations. So 10 K.V. generator was returned and the 1st opposite party sent another generator. On verification, it was found that the 1st opposite party arranged 10 K.V.A. generator and imprinting 15 K.V.A. So, the 1st opposite party cheated the complainant by supplying 10 K.V.A. Generator in the place of 15 K.V.A. generator. The 2nd opposite party was manufacturer. So, the second hand generator instead of new one was supplied. The generator was delivered at Bukkapatnam Village through transport on 10-03-2005. The complainant addressed a letter to 1st opposite party demanding to replace with a new one. The 1st opposite party sent a reply, but did not replace.
Therefore, the complaint was filed to replace defective generator with a new generator of 15 K.V.A. and also costs.
3(a) The 1st opposite party filed counter admitting purchase of 15 K.V.A. generator for Rs.1,50,000/- and payment through Demand drafts and also admitted supply of 10 K.V.A. generator and the same was returned by the complainant. It was not correct that 10 K.V.A. generator was supplied instead of 15 K.V.A. generator after erasing 10 K.V.A. and imprinting 15 K.V.A. and also it was second hand generator. The complainant as security from the 1st opposite party collected a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- dt.26-02-2005 drawn on Canara Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad, on understanding that the complainant would return the cheque immediately after installation of the generator. 15 K.V.A. generator was supplied and 10 K.V.A. generator was returned. 15 K.V.A. Generator was transported through Navata Transport under Waybill No.13647 DT.07-03-2005 and installed by the opposite party. The complainant sent a letter also to that effect that it was installed satisfactorily and it was 15 K.V.A. capacity.
Thus, the opposite party completed its obligation to the satisfaction of the complainant, but the complainant failed to return the cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- as promised. Instead of returning the cheque, the complainant presented the same at his Bank but it was dishonoured. However, a notice was issued u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on 03-10-2005 with a new story. The opposite party sent a reply also. The required load of the complainant was 13,500 Watts to which 10 K.V.A. capacity could not work. Therefore, there were no merits and hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
3(b) After the complaint was filed, the 2nd opposite party was impleaded by way of amendment as per orders in I.A.No.377/06 DT.28-11-2006.
4. The 2nd opposite party was set-exparte on 27-12-2006.
5. The points for consideration are:-
1.
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the party of the respondents/opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for ?
3. To what relief ?
6. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 and on behalf of the 1st opposite party Ex.B1 & B2 were marked.
7. POINT NOS.1 & 2:- It was an admitted fact that the complainant made an order and purchased one 15 K.V.A. Kirloskar Diesel Generator for Rs.1,50,000/- from the 1st opposite party with a condition to supply at Bukkapatnam.
It was also admitted by the 1st opposite party that 10 K.V.A. generator was supplied instead of 15 K.V.A. But 10 K.V.A. generator was taken back and in its place 15 K.V. A. generator was installed to the satisfaction of the complainant. It was sent by Navata Transport. Ex.A1 was the invoice issued by the 1st opposite party dt.07-03-2005. It was specifically disclosed in Ex.A1 that it was a second sale. The complainant sent a notice to the 1st opposite party. Office copy of the notice was Ex.A2 that the 1st opposite party supplied 10 K.V.A. generator. It was also duplicate generator and it was not 15 K.V.A. generator. Ex.A3 was the reply notice sent by the 1st opposite party denying its liability. Ex.A4 was the operation and maintenance manual. The 1st opposite party filed Ex.B1 Xerox copy of the letter dt.12-03-2005 sent by the complainant that 15 K.V.A. generator was installed satisfactorily. Ex.B2 was a letter that it was not possible to convert from 10 K.V.A. to a 15 K.V.A. generator. Therefore, in view of Ex.B1, the 1st opposite party installed to the satisfaction of the complainant 15 K.V.A. generator.
Therefore, there was no deficiency of service on the part of both opposite parties and thus the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
8. POINT NO.3:- In the result, the complainant is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 22nd day of November, 2007.
Sd/-
Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT (F.A.C.) DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
ANANTAPUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
NIL OPPOSITE PARTIES : NIL EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Ex.A1 - Invoice issued by the 1st opposite party dt.07-03-2005.
Ex.A2 - Office copy of the notice got issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A3 - Reply notice sent by the 1st opposite party denying its liability.
Ex.A4 The Operation and maintenance manual.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 Ex.B1 - Xerox copy of the letter dt.12-03-2005 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.B2 - letter dt.08-09-2006 that it was not possible to convert from 10 K.V.A. to 15 K.V.A. generator.
Sd/-
Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT (F.A.C.) DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR Typed by JPNN