JARNAIL SINGH Vs. HAPPY ANAND BHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Jarnail Singh (in short 'the appellant') against the order dated 18.2.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that appellant/complainant was running a Tailoring shop under the name and style of Guru Nanak Kaze Centre situated at Red Road, Hoshiarpur, as its sole Proprietor. On 17.7.2000, the respondent/opposite party came at his shop and showed one Fushing Machine size 17x36 inches, complete. The said machine was brought from Batala for sale at Hoshiarpur, in Sumo Jeep and the sale price of the same was told as Rs. 31,500, besides, octroi charges. The respondent/opposite party also assured him that the said machine was a new one, in good running condition and of 1.5 K.W. He purchased the said machine after paying Rs. 31,700 total out of which Rs. 200 was octroi charges. The payment was made at Hoshiarpur. The respondent had agreed for replacement of the machine, if the same was found defective or otherwise to return Rs. 31,700 as the total cost price. Appellant further alleged that on 18.7.2000, he found the said machine defective. The same was not in running working condition. The machine was found old and defective and of 3 K.W. He contacted the respondent, who in turn assured him to replace the said defective machine with a new one of 1.5 K.W. But the respondent put off the matter on one pretext or the other. He contacted the opposite party many a time, but all in vain. A legal notice was served upon the opposite party through registered cover through his Counsel and respondent gave reply to the same through his Counsel and finally refused to replace the machine or to repay cost price with damages on 10.11.2001. The machine was found defective from the very beginning and thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Hence, the present complaint.

(3.) RESPONDENT filed written statement and contested the complaint. However, he admitted that complainant was running a Tailoring Shop and that Fushing Machine was sold by him for a total sale price of Rs. 31,700 out of which Rs. 200 were of octroi charges. The respondent denied that appellant had paid the entire cost price of machine amounting to Rs. 31,700 to him. He also denied that complainant found any defect in the machine on 18.7.2000. According to the respondent, the whole story of the appellant was false, frivolous, baseless, imaginary and without any force. The appellant never informed him about any defect in the machine. The complaint was still using the machine and running his business smoothly. Admittingly that a legal notice dated 19.10.2001 was received by him from the appellant, the respondent further pleaded that he had already filed a Civil Suit against the appellant and the appellant had full knowledge about the pendency of the same. The suit was filed for recovery of balance amount from the appellant. The appellant had filed the present complaint to put pressure upon him to withdraw the said suit. Denying all other allegations in the complaint, the respondent further pleaded that as a matter of fact the appellant had placed an order for supply of one Fushing Machine of 17"x 36" size, complete with the respondent and he assured the respondent that he will take the delivery of the machine against the payment. As soon as the machine became ready, the respondent informed the appellant for its delivery. However, on the request of the complainant the respondent brought the machine at Hoshiarpur and supplied the machine vide Bill No. 508 dated 17.7.2000 for Rs. 31,500. The complainant/appellant took the delivery of the machine after inspection and found the same entirely to his satisfaction. Appellant/complainant with ulterior and malafide motive had paid only a sum of Rs. 20,500 out of Rs. 31,500 to respondent and he assured to make the balance payment within a month or so. He believed the appellant but he did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 11,000 till filing of the complaint. Hence, respondent had no other alternative but to file Civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,000 plus interest which was pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Batala. Appellant refused to receive Dasti summons as well as registered letters. Now, the service of the appellant had been affected through publication in the newspaper. The said suit was pending in the Court for the last about 22 months. The appellant has filed the present complaint only after notice was issued to him only to put pressure upon the respondents to withdraw the suit. The appellant had confirmed the balance amount of Rs. 11,000 with his own handwriting on the back of the duplicate Bill maintained by the respondent. Thus, the complaint was not maintainable. The machine purchased by the appellant was neither defective nor old one at the time of delivery of the same. An amount of Rs. 11,000 plus interest @ 1% per mensum w.e.f. 17.7.2000 till actual realization of the amount was due and payable by the appellant to the respondent. The respondent had also claimed Rs. 15,000 as litigation expenses and Rs. 10,000 as compensation.