HANUMAN TUBES Vs. NAS ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 2.8.2003 in Complaint No. 48/2003 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called District Forum for short) directing the appellant to pay to the complainant/respondent Rs. 1,77,750/ - with interest @ 12% per annum payable from 6.7.2001 besides cost of the complaint.

(2.) THE averments of the complainant stated in brief are that he is the Registered Contractor of the Bhilai Steel Plant (hereinafter called as B.S.P. for short) and uses the articles purchased by him in his work. Since he had obtained the contract from B.S.P. for installing hand pumps, he had purchased 60 hand pumps and 60 cylinders and some other machinery articles for Rs. 2,50,250/ -. The complainant further averred that the opposite party had given the above articles representing that they are I.S.I. marked and had also mentioned so in the bills. However, the said articles when examined by the expert in the campus of the B.S.P. showed that the said articles were not I.S.I. marked. The intimation as above, was given by the B.S.P. by their letter dated 27.7.2001 to the complainant. As a result, the complainant was required to purchase other articles of the requisite standard and had to use them, which resulted in loss to the complainant. He, accordingly, claimed that the price of the said articles Rs. 2,50,250/ - along with compensation and interest be awarded to him.

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the opposite party/appellant. It was averred that opposite party never supplied 60 hand pumps and 60 cylinders or other machinery articles to the complainant. It was averred that the opposite party/appellant did not represent that he would supply I.S.I. standard marked to the complainant. The averment of the opposite party/appellant also was that though the complainant alleges that he purchased articles worth Rs. 2,50,250/ - but he has produced bill for the purchase of articles worth Rs. 83,250/ - only. The opposite party/appellant also denied that the said bill was issued by him. It was, accordingly, prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.