SANJAY GUPTA Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by one Sanjay Gupta, proprietor, Success Instruments (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) which had dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner, in favour of Mr. Ramesh (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent).

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the Respondent who was the original complainant before the District Forum had entered into an agreement with the Petitioner on 06.02.2005 whereby the Petitioner was to supply him a Sensui Weigh Bridge for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as per stipulated schedule of agreement of payment against the work done. THE Respondent paid the Petitioner in advance a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 07.05.2005 and as per the agreement the Petitioner had to supply the aforesaid electronic Weigh Bridge within two months. On 10.05.2005, the Petitioner supplied with six mounting assembly machines worth Rs.12,000/- and also asked for another Rs.25,000/- with the assurance that the remaining equipments would be installed within a week. However, despite several requests Petitioner failed to supply the Weigh Bridge within the stipulated time and instead informed Respondent that the price of the Weigh Bridge had increased to Rs.3,21,000/- because the platform constructed by respondent was made of old material and with wrong measurements because of which setting-up of an Electronic Weigh Bridge of 100 MT capacity was not possible. Further, Rs.50,000/- that had been taken in advance was the actual cost of the assembly machines. Aggrieved by this and after issuing a legal notice to which there was no response, the Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest a@ 18% and Rs.30,000/- for mental harassment and costs.

(3.) IN the whole of the agreement, there appears no terms under which the Platform of a particular size, and of a particular strength or a particular width, was required to be constructed by the respondent. IN view of this, it can not be said that respondent/complainant, was deficient in constructing the Platform of a particular size, width and strength and therefore, denial on the part of appellant/O.P. for erection of Weight Bridge on this ground does not appear justifiable and on this count alone, there appears deficiency in providing supply of the Weight Bridge and installing the same at the premises of the complainant/respondent.