A SURESH BABU Vs. GUJAVARTHI RAMACHANDER REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, the petition has been filed by the OP company and the respondent herein is the original complainant. The complainant installed a rice mill in the year 2001. Every year it had to purchase one lakh quintals of paddy and convert it into rice and sell the rice to the Food Corporation of India and in the open market. Attracted by the advertisement of the OP, the complainant placed an order on 17.8.2004 for supplying a weigh bridge of 5 tons capacity for Rs. 4,10,000 and paid 25% of the quoted price i.e. Rs. 1,01,750 on 17.8.2004. On 5.11.2004, OP delivered the weigh bridge and its Engineer fixed the same on 23.11.2004 after which the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2 lakh. Installation of the weigh bridge was completed on 23.11.2004 and the invoice was handed over on the same day. Having found the weigh bridge to be defective, defects were brought to the notice of the OP, upon which the OP engineers visited twice and rectified the defects and fitted the weigh bridge with load cells. Balance amount of Rs. 1 lakh including the fitting charges were paid thereafter. Contrary to the warranty given by the OP, the weigh bridge was not functioning properly and the plates were broken because of which the complainant suffered losses.

(2.) Aggrieved by the malfunctioning of the weigh bridge and also the attitude of the OP in attending to the defects, the complainant approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint seeking directions to the OP for replacement of weigh bridge of 50 HP and for paying Rs. 20,000 or in the alternative to refund the value of the weigh bridge of Rs. 4,10,000 with interest 24% per annum and Rs. 20,000 towards damages.

(3.) OP filed its counter denying the averments made in the complaint and submitted that the complainant had filed a false complaint only to evade the payment of balance amount which is due from the complainant to the OP.