SHREE M.B. INDUSTRIES Vs. SUSHIL BHATAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SH . Sushil Bhatar, complainant No.1 is the Proprietor of Mangaldeep Industries, Jodhpur, OP2. Complainant No.2 is a Small Scale Industry registered with Industries Department since 24.12.1996 and is engaged in manufacture of chalk powder by grinding stone in pololazer machine. Sh. Sushil Bhatar purchased a 3 -roller grinding machine from M.B.Industry, OP, for a sum of Rs.5,40,000/ -. The said transaction was finalized on 26.03.2005 and the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,01,000/ - to OP, vide cheque dated 26.03.2005, Rs.20,000/ - were paid on 22.05.2005 and Rs.3,33,000/ - were paid vide draft dated 16.07.2005. The complainant had also paid a post -dated cheque (03.10.2005) amounting to Rs.50,000/ -. It was agreed between the parties that the said post -dated cheque was to be presented before the Bank only if it transpired that the machine was functioning satisfactorily.

(2.) THE complainant wrote a letter to the OP alleging that machine in question was not working properly and as such, post -dated cheque in the sum of Rs.50,000/ - dated 03.10.2005 should not be presented. The OP replied that, that was a false allegation sent with ulterior motive for withholding Rs.50,000/ - belonging to the OP. Ultimately, a complaint was filed with the District Forum. The District Forum concluded that some parts of the machine supplied to the complainant were defective which were to be repaired and replaced by new parts. The District Forum based its finding on the Inspection Report of Mr.O.P.Sharda who is Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Branch. He had inspected the machine on 22.08.2005. Aggrieved by that order, the OP approached the State Commission. The State Commission passed the following order: -

(3.) IT is not out of place to mention here that vide order dated 08.01.2007, the District Forum refused to hear this matter and directed the parties to appear before the Civil Court as it involved contentious issues which can be heard and adjudicated by the Civil Court only. Thereafter, the State Commission remanded this case back to the District Forum with the direction to decide the case. The District Forum again settled the case on 08.05.2008.