M.SESHADRI VASA Vs. MAGALIPURI KISHORE KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same subject matter that came to be adjudicated in C.D.No.72/2003 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam. The facts that led to filing these two appeals are briefly as follows:

(2.) The complainant claiming to have been motivated by opposite parties 1 and 2 placed an order with opposite party No.2 for the purchase of Offset Master Mini Printing machine of 45 x 20' size centralized lubrication for an amount of Rs.2,85,000/-. The said deal was confirmed by a document signed mutually by the complainant on one hand and the representative of the manufacturer, opposite party no.2 on the other as per Ex.A9. It is pertinent to point out that opposite party no.1(appellant) is not a party to the said confirmation. The complainant claimed to have paid a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to opposite party no.2 for the supply of the machinery for which he placed order with opposite party no.2. A further amount was outstanding due to opposite party no.2 yet in the further interaction, opposite party no.2 remained totally silent and in substance not only failed to collect the balance consideration but also to supply the machinery as agreed. Thus the complainant alleged that opposite party no.2 directly and also his agent opposite party no.1 who according to him was instrumental in encouraging him for this deal were guilty of deficiency in service and on that footing claimed reliefs,

(3.) Opposite party No.2 remained exparte though substituted service was effected after direct service failed.