RAMAKRISHNA AUTO COLOUR LAB Vs. AVER PHOTOPRINT SYSTEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first complainant is a partnership firm represented by its partner Mrs. P. Nagamani and second complainant is Mr. P. Ramakrishna, second partner. The first complainant is an unemployed and the second complainant is having vast knowledge and experience in photography and both of them happened to be wife and husband. They approached A.P. State Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as APSFC ) in the year 1991 for setting up of an Automatic Film Processing (Colour) Unit at Tanuku in the name and style of first complainant. APSFC approved the project of the complainant through their branch at Eluru, West Godavari District and indicated that the complainant can get the machinery required by them through their panel suppliers i.e., opposite party herein. The complainants approached the opposite party at Bombay for supply of the required machinery for setting up of a film processing unit. The opposite party impressed upon the complainant that their firm is a prominent one in the country and that they will supply standard machinery and instal the same and also attend to after sales service whenever required and issued a proforma invoice No. AFS/91/10 dated 2.2.1991 for submission to APSFC, showing the total cost of the machinery, packing charges, 4% C.S.T., and insurance with a total cost of Rs. 6,63,675/ -. Accordingly the complainants submitted the proforma invoice issued by the opposite party to APSFC, Eluru branch and also informed regarding the payment of Rs. 50,000/ - on 17.1.1995 and Rs. 1,15,000/ - on 2.2.1991 as the opposite party pressurised for payment as the machinery will be despatched in priority basis. The complainants have made a payment of Rs. 30,000/ - on 12.2.1991 to the opposite party. APSFC, Eluru branch through their letter dated 30.3.1991 that they will make payment of Rs. 4,01,625/ - against the supply of entire machinery within one month from the said date and requested that the machinery should be despatched and documented through Bank i.e., Andhra Bank, Ashoknagar, Eluru and after receipt of L.R. the amount will be disbursed through bank. Opposite party wrote a letter dated 19.4.1991 confirming the receipt of Rs. 1,96,000/ - from the complainants and asked APSFC, to release the balance of the amount. Opposite party got their amount released through APSFC. and installed the machinery. It is the case of the complainants that the machinery was not working properly and that they made STD calls to send their technicians as agreed to by them to repair the machinery and correct the defects. Opposite party ignored the pleas of the complainants and it is only after the repeated requests, they sent their technicians. The incidental charges of the technicians were borne by the complainants as requested by the opposite party but they failed to rectify the defects and did not effect proper repairs. The complainants further stated that the opposite party did not keep up the time schedule for repairing the machinery installed. After making several STD calls the opposite party sent their technicians Sri Dhananjay D. Padve on condition that his boarding and lodging charges have to be borne by the complainants. The technician stayed from 8.7.1991 to 14.8.1991 and only added to the expenditure of the complainant. Since the complainant was not satisfied another technician, by name, Mr. Ajit Patel came on 31.8.1991 stayed upto 18.9.1991 and wasted the chemicals and materials provided by the complainants, but failed to commission to the unit satisfactorily. In short, it is the case of the complainants that several technicians including Surender Ajgonkar visited the place of the complainants but failed to commission the unit. Hence the complainants approached this Commission claiming the following amounts.

(2.) OPPOSITE party though served with notice did not choose to appear, hence this Commission set ex parte the opposite party on 13.11.1998. Though the matter was adjourned several times, the opposite party did not appear and contest the matter.

(3.) BASED on the pleadings and Exs. A1 to A26, this Commission found that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,88,675/ - with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till payment.