P KANNAN Vs. P CHINNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant purchased machinery from the opposite party. The machinery was intended for manufacturing of paper envelop. The cost of the machinery was in a sum of Rs. 51,672 inclusive of transportation and erection. The complainant's case is that the opposite party did not deliver the machinery in good condition. Further, according to the complainant, the machinery was not properly installed and as a result the complainant could not run the business with the result that he sustained loss and had to pay heavy interest to the bank.

(2.) THE Lower Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund the cost of the machinery and pay compensation.

(3.) THERE are certain important aspects in this case which have not been taken note of by the Lower Forum. The Utility Certificate which has been issued by the Assistant Development Officer mentions that the machinery have been installed and the machinery is in working condition. The said Certificate Ex. C -1 cannot be ignored. The Lower Forum has not chosen to give any acceptable reason for discarding Ex. C -1. Merely because it does not contain the signature of the complainant, the certificate cannot become any less important. A person has been authorized to inspect and issue certificate has given a certificate. There are no reasons given as to why such a certificate should have been issued by the Assistant Development Officer. Thus, the Lower Forum erred in not accepting the said Certificate. The other ground upon which the Lower Forum has come to its conclusion is on the basis of the Commissioner's report. The Commissioner's report is of no consequence. The Commissioner has inspected nearly after three years. The Commissioner found four holes on the dusty floor. He found a calendar on the table showing September 1999. He also found three empty boxes. He found envelope dice and punching machine. The Forum below concluded that the machinery was not in working condition on the basis of the Commissioner's report. The Commissioner visited the place on 12.10.2000 nearly 32 months after the erection. The holes that the Commissioner found on the floor have been dug up with a view to fit the machine and otherwise the holes there cannot be explained. If the machinery were not fitted, there could not have been any necessity to dig up the holes and the holes would have got filled up especially when the Commissioner had visited the place after more than 2 years. Apparently the holes were there because the machinery were removed just prior to the visit of the Commissioner. The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party failed to erect the machinery whereas we find from the Commissioner's report that the holes were dug up on the floor and certain machinery were found. The fact that there was a calendar found with the month showing September 1999 would only show that the machinery were being put to use till September 1999. Therefore, the Commissioner's report is not at all of any use and on the other hand, if read in the background of the Utilisation certificate, the Commissioner's report would only further strengthen the opposite party's case that the machinery were installed and the machinery was in working condition till September 1999. The Utilisation certificate was issued on 24.4.1998 on which date the officer had inspected and found that the machinery was installed and the project has been completed, whereas the Commissioner has visited on 12.10.2000. The machinery came into existence long prior to any dispute that arose between the parties. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Lower Forum ought to have accepted Ex. C -1. In fact, the Commissioner's report does not in any manner go against Ex. C -1 and on the other hand it is only supportive of Ex. C -1. Therefore, on the face of the Commissioner's report and the Utilisation certificate and considering the fact that the complainant has chosen to keep quiet for nearly two years after the supply of the machinery and has chosen to approach the Forum only in the month of April 1999 would show that the allegation of deficiency in service by the complainant is false and fanciful. Hence, in this view of the matter, we hold that the order passed by the Lower Forum cannot be maintained at all.