RAMESH KOHLI Vs. EI POWER ENGINEERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order of State Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi, dated 20.1.1998, passed in Complaint Case No.265/1997 entitled Shri Ramesh Kohli V/s. M/s. EI Power Engineers and Ors.

(2.) The brief facts, necessary for deciding the present appeal are, that the appellant had purchased an inverter for Rs.13,500/- from respondent No.1, a partnership firm, on 24.4.1996. At the time of placing the order, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 had represented to be the partners of respondent No.1. The inverter and the batteries purchased from respondent No.1, had been installed at the residence of the appellant on 30.4.1996. Since the said inverter had worked satisfactorily for about a month, the appellant had placed an order for the installation of 625 KVA inverter at the residence of his brother, namely, Shri Rajesh Kohli at C-42, Gujranwala Apartments, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. As such the said inverter was installed at the premises of the brother of the appellant on 13.5.1996 for which a sum of Rs.6,000/- had been paid by the appellant to the respondent No.2, Shri Lalit Bhushan at the time of placing the order and balance Rs.6,000/- at the time of installation of the inverter at the residence of the brother of the appellant on 13.5.1996. The said inverter however, stopped working and, accordingly, the appellant lodged a complaint with respondent No.1, through its partner, Shri Arun Khattar, respondent No.3, who came to the premises of the brother of the appellant and took the inverter for repairs. After two days the appellant and his brother were informed that one component had not been fitted at the time of assembling the inverter and as such the inverter had stopped functiong. A sum of Rs.750/- was demanded towards the repair charges and, therefore, the appellant had contacted the other partner respondent No.2, Shri Lalit Bhushan and complained regarding the service charges. The said respondent No.2 had assured the appellant that the inverter in question would be replaced within few days. But despite contacting both the respondent Nos.2 and 3 the inverter was not replaced and as such the appellant served a legal notice on the respondents and since no response was received, the appellant approached the District Forum by filing the present complaint praying for the refund of Rs.12,000/-, the price paid for the inverter together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with interest @ 18% p. a. from the date of its payment till realization and also claimed cost of Rs.1,500/-.

(3.) Respondent No.2 in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum had admitted the receipt of Rs.5,000/- on behalf of respondent No.1, the partnership firm but had denied the fact that the said amount had been received by him in his personal capacity. However, the delivery of first inverter installed at the premises of the appellant was admitted but the receipt of balance payment of Rs.8,500/- in respect of the price of the said inverter was denied. It was stated by the respondent No.2 that since the transaction regarding purchase of the inverter had taken place with respondent No.3, he had no knowledge of the same. The receipt of payment with regard to the second inverter was totally denied. It was, however, mentioned that the partnership concern i. e. respondent No.1 had already been dissolved vide Dissolution Deed dated 30.5.1996, a copy of which was placed on record.