State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R.Anthony Savari Raj,Aqua Raksha ... vs C.Pitchaiammal,Tirunelveli. on 30 November, 2022
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.34/2015
(Against the order made in C.C.No.186/2013 dated 15.04.2014 on the file of
the District Forum, Tirunelveli.)
WEDNESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
R.Anthony Savari Raj,
Proprietor, M/s. Aqua Raksha Industries,
1/46, TWAD Colony 3rd Street,
New Natham Road, Tirupalai,
Madurai - 625 014. Appellant/Opposite Party
-Vs-
C.Pitchaiammal,
D/o N.Ammaiappan,
Old No.225/A, New No.3/1, Narayana Nagar,
Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for Appellant/Opposite Party : Mr.V.Sakthivel, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Advocate.
This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 08.11.2021 and on
perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This appeal has been preferred under section 15 r/w section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite parties who suffered by an order at the hands of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli, directing the opposite party to receive the balance amount of 2 Rs.39,000/- from the complainant and rectifying the defects found in the unit for getting 2000 litre LPH mineral water per hour, and also obtained the license hand over to the complainant and directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as costs to the complainant.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Tirunelveli.
3. The case of the complainant is as follows;- The complainant had approached with the opposite party for starting a Water Treatment Plant and the opposite party inspected the property belongs to the complainant. As per the advised of the opposite party the complainant purchased 2000 litre water plant and the opposite party has arranged for its installation of LPH motor fixed with the pump set for water supply and accepted to install the plant for the supply of 2000 litre water per hour. In continuation on 23.08.2012 the opposite party issued the quotation for the installation of (Oasis Mineral Water Plant). Both parties entered into an agreement on 19.09.2012 for the installation of the plant for the cost of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.52,000/- for IHWF flavored Water Drinking license Fees and agreed payment of 60% amount as advance and to pay 20% amount at the time of delivery and to pay remaining 20% amount after installation of the unit. The complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.09.2012, and Rs.2,00,000/- on 22.09.2012, and Rs.75,000/- on 12.03.2013 the opposite party also received the license fees of Rs.52,000/-. The opposite party did not issue receipt for the payment of Rs.52,000/- 3 paid as a license fees. The complainant was not able to get 2000 litre water per hour he can able to get only 1000 LPH mineral water per hour and also dropped water leakage. When the complainant contact with the opposite party and they assured to rectify the defects but, it was not rectified short supply of mineral water with additional doubled amount for electricity expenses. The complainant also loosed her customers due to not able to delivery of water supply. The complainant sent a letter to the opposite party on 01.05.2013 and also received a reply with false contents from the opposite party. The liquid used for mixing the water for operating the plant was not supplied by the opposite party. The complainant is not able to maintain the plant and he suffered heavy loss and mental agony. Therefore, the complaint is filed to direct the opposite party to supply of liquid by rectifying the defects in the unit for generating 2000 litre of LPH mineral water per hour, and also to get necessary license and handed over to the complainant, and also to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with interest at the rate of 12% and also to pay cost of the proceedings.
4. The opposite party not appeared before the District Forum after receiving notice and he was treated as ex-parte. The learned District Forum passed an ex-parte order against the opposite party directing him to receive the balance amount of Rs.39,000/- from the complainant and to rectifying the defects found in the unit for getting 2000 litre LPH mineral water per hour, and also obtained the license handed over to the complainant and directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as costs to the complainant.
4
5. Being aggrieved against that order the opposite party challenged it by filing the appeal by stating that, the free copy of the ex-parte order was made ready and sent to the opposite party by the District Forum on 19.05.2014. The opposite party filed the appeal along with application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The notice received at the office of the opposite party's was unfortunately got misplaced mixed up with some other papers and the appellant had no knowledge about the pendency of the complaint. He came know about the case only on receipt of the free order copy from the District Forum Tirunelveli. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and to set aside the District Forum order.
6. No additional evidence adduced by both parties in this appeal before this Commission.
7. Point for consideration is:-
Whether the award passed by the Learned District Forum, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.186/2013, dated 15.04.2014 is sustainable under law or not?
8. Point The complainant approached the opposite party for installing a water treatment plant and paid Rs.3,75,000/- and admits the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- is to be paid by the complainant. The complainant alleged in the complaint she has paid Rs.52,000/- for obtaining necessary fees for installation of the plant but it was denied by the opposite party. There is no proof is available it requires some delay enquiry whether the complainant paid or not. When she was able to prove the payment for license then only the opposite party is duty bound to get license and handed over to the complainant. If the license is monetary for maintaining the water treatment plant to pass an order to run the unit without necessary license with amounts to illegal purpose. The opposite party is in a better 5 position to explain the nature of license authority to whom issued the license, and the purpose of obtaining the license as should be explained and proved by the opposite party. The opposite party remained absent before the District Forum the complainant was also not produced any proof for payment of Rs.52,000/- for the license.
9. The complainant also alleged some defects in the unit the opposite party stated in his reply he is ready to rectify the defects on payment of balance amount of Rs.39,000/-. The above facts are to be proved by the complainant by producing supporting evidences then only the opposite party is duty bound to rectify the defects and obtaining the license. The terms of the agreement also not properly explained by the complainant, the warranty of the unit was not properly explained, and the present condition of the unit also not properly explained. The above facts are required detailed enquiry.
10. Therefore, the order passed by the Learned District Forum is not sustainable under law as it requires further enquiry after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides hearing before the District Forum Tirunelveli and accordingly the matter has to be remanded back to the District Forum for fresh disposal on merits on hearing both sides for which the appeal has to be allowed and the matter to be remanded back to the District Forum Tirunelveli for fresh disposal on merits as per law and answered accordingly for the point for consideration.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli made in C.C.No.186/2013, dated 15.04.2014 and the complaint is remanded back 6 to the District Forum, Tirunelveli for fresh enquiry and disposal on merit basis after hearing both sides.
Both parties shall appear before the District Forum Tirunelveli on 02.01.2023 the appellant/opposite party shall file their written version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents if any on that date itself. The District Forum shall proceed with the enquiry and dispose of the complaint on merits after hearing both sides as far as possible from the date of appearance of both parties, as per law.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 30th day of November 2022.
N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.