SELF HELP GROUP ASSOCIATION Vs. NARESH MAHENDRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINT was filed by the appellant on 23.3.2001. Its claim was that it is an association and under a Scheme it had obtained loan for Rs. 1,50,000/ - from H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rohru, for its livelihood. Documents Annexures C.1 and C.2 were attached with this. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - was paid by the appellant to the respondent vide receipt copy whereof is annexured as Annexure C.3. It will be appropriate to notice in this behalf that receipt of this amount is not disputed by the respondent. Machinery was ultimately supplied by the respondent on 10.10.2000 and was installed at the shop of the appellant at Rohru. It was old and was not functioning properly as per the appellant. Immediately after installation on 10.10.2000, these facts were brought to the notice of the respondent on the every next day, i.e. 11.10.2000. When no action was taken by him, legal notice was got issued vide Annexure C.4. In this background, claimant was filed by the respondent on his failure to replace the old and defective machine or to refund the cost thereof amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/ - (wrongly shown as Rs. 1,15,000/ - in paragraph 8, 10 and prayer clause (a) of the claimant), besides compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - on account of financial loss, mental torture and harassment, expenditure etc. incurred on account of visiting the shop by the respondent on a number of occasions, cost of legal notice to the tune of Rs. 550/ - and Rs. 11,000/ - as litigation cost was also claimed.

(2.) WHEN put to notice, stand of the respondent in its reply was that the appellant had no locus standi to file the present claimant and it was estopped from filing the same due to its own acts, deeds and conduct. The alleged machinery was supplied in the presence of the appellant which was duly received in accurate position, hence claimant was barred by limitation and was liable to be dismissed. On the merits of the case, it is admitted by the appellant that machines were purchased by the respondent in the presence of the appellant and handed over to it on 10.10.2000 in accurate and running condition after those were installed in the premises in the presented of the claimant at Rohru. Mechanic of the appellant was also present. The machinery was handed over in accurate and running position and no difficulty was found at that time, and none was conveyed to the respondent. He came to know of these facts after filing of the claimant as well as notice issued to him. Defects were due to unskilled workers of the appellant and the machines being not properly handled. Defects occurred because of acts and deeds as well as on account of its mis -handling. In these circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of the claimant.

(3.) THIS order of District Forum below was challenged by the respondent in Appeal No. 90/2002. This appeal was allowed on 10.10.2002 by this Commission and after setting aside the order of the District Forum, case was remanded back to the said Forum for fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in the order of the Commission.