BAWA INDUSTRIES Vs. VIPAL OIL EXTRACTION PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 9.11.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had purchased two diesel Generator Sets of 20 K. V. and 7 K. V. for Rs.68,000/- and Rs.34,500/- on 16.8.1998 and 22.8.1998 respectively at Abohar. The complainant had cleared the payment of Rs.68,000/- of 20 K. V. generator set through Bank. It was mentioned in the complaint that soon after the delivery the generator sets started giving problems. The complainant had intimated the appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party), vide letter dated 28.8.1998 that both the generator sets supplied by the opposite party were lying un-functional and had requested that some Engineer be sent to remove the defects as assured by the opposite party at the time of selling the same. On receipt of the letter of the complainant, two Engineers/mechanics of the opposite party had visited the complainant at Abohar and had checked the generator sets. They had told the complainant that the crank shaft of 7 K. V. generator set was broken and its alternator used to heat up. He was further told by them that a part of engine of 20 K. V. set was broken and the alternator was defective. As the generator sets could not be repaired there, these were to be taken to Phagwara. The complainant was told that the generator sets were being taken back to Phagwara for replacement. The complainant waited for about 10/12 days but when the opposite party did not take any action, he had again written a letter dated 19.9.1998 to the opposite party and had requested that generator sets be replaced/got made functional at the earliest as the whole work of the complainant had come to stand still. Again when no service was provided by the opposite party, the complainant had talked on the telephone with the opposite party for making generator sets functional. He had again written a letter on 26.10.1998 making complaints regarding the generator sets to the opposite party but all in vain. It was further stated in the complaint that the selling of defective generator sets against money consideration, with a view to defraud the innocent consumer amounted to unfair trade practice and as per ISI specifications, the engine of 30 H. P. was to be supplied whereas in the present case for 20 K. V. generator set only 24 H. P. engine had been supplied. There was no mention of ISI mark on the generator sets. A prayer was made in the complaint before the District Forum that the opposite party be directed to refund the amount of Rs.68,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and harassment and loss of business and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the litigation to the complainant.

(3.) Opposite party filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections saying that the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the opposite party and was filed to pressurise the opposite party to withdraw its previously instituted suit in the Civil Court at Phagwara. The present complaint, according to the opposite party, was a counter-blast. No cause of action had arisen to the complainant within the jurisdiction of the District Forum as the complainant had purchased the generator sets in question at Phagwara and had taken the delivery at Phagwara itself and as such, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The other allegations made in the complaint were also denied by the opposite party. It was stated that UPC receipts had been fabricated by the complainant and had been made ante-date after having acquired the knowledge of the institution of civil suit by the opposite party against the complainant at Phagwara. It was then stated in the reply that the opposite party had never sold any ISI mark generator set nor those were of ISI specifications nor the opposite party ever represented to the complainant regarding such specifications. The generator set of 20 K. V. had engine of 26 H. P. It was then prayed that the complaint be dismissed.