SHREE ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. DINEX INDIA PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the opposite party against the order dated 14.5.93 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. By the impugned order the State Commission has directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a to the complainant-respondent herein. The parties will be referred to by their nomenclature.

(2.) The brief facts as gathered from the records are that the complainant decided to purchase a Dissolved Acetylene (DA) Plant from the opposite party who is a manufacturer of the above referred plants. On 21.5.85 a written agreement was entered into between the parties wherein the opposite party had undertaken to supply complete D.A. Plant to the complainant after erection, commissioning and trial run etc. in the premises of the complainant in Distt. Dehradun on turn-key basis. The price of the plant was agreed at Rs. 8 lakhs (inclusive of all taxes and expenses upto the site). The complainant paid Rs. 2 lakhs in advance to the opposite party. As per the agreement the opposite party was to complete the installation of the plant at the site within 5/6 months, but it was after 22 months that the opposite party supplied partial equipment and sent a bill for Rs. 2,10,000/- dated 23.3.87. The opposite party failed to supply the balance equipment and has not started the erection etc. of the D.A. Plant at the site of the complainant. On failure of the opposite party to supply the complete machinery, the complainant asked the opposite party to take back the parts of the machinery already supplied as it was of no use to the complainant unless the complete plant was erected and to refund the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs already paid as advance.

(3.) It is the further allegation of the complainant that the opposite party had agreed to refund the said amount but have not refunded so far. Now several D.A. Plants have come up in the vicinity of the complainant's site and they have captured the market and the complainant has been deprived of the advantage of being the pioneer in the market in this field. The complainant has thus been financially hard hit due to the act of the opposite party which according to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant has already invested a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs in the purchase of land, its development and construction etc. for erection of the D.A. Plant at the site. The complainant has obtained water connection, electricity connection, telephone connection and also procured "No Objection Certificate" from the Pollution Control Board and approval of the Development Authority. Hence, the complainant has claimed for the refund of Rs. 2 lakhs from the opposite party alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund plus Rs. 3,00,000/- spent by the complainant on the construction etc. and in obtaining necessary connections and certificate from the Pollution Control Board. The complainant also claimed Rs. 600/- p.m. as expenses for taking care at the site.