SHREYA ENTERPRISES vs Biswajit Roy

THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Howrah, dated 24.7.2002. The facts of the case in brief are stated hereunder.

THE complainant is the owner of the business of M/s. Himadri Impex at Andul Road, Howrah. He informed the O.P. by a letter dated 23.11.1998 for purchasing of a 3 H.P. A.C. motor of 440 volt with mechanical speed drive. THE O.P. demanded Rs. 70,000/- as consideration. After the said payment the O.P. supplied a 2 H.P. motor 1425 R.P.M. 440 volt AC/T.EC type instead of 3 H.P. on 16.6.2000. Moreover the said machine was a defective one. THE complainant requested the O.P. for several times to deliver a new and defect free machine of 3 H.P. But the O.P. did not take any step for replacement of the same. For this reason the complainant was compelled to take step for repairing it for his daily need and an expenditure of Rs. 5,285/- was incurred for replacement of the defective parts of the machine excluding the repairing charge. Since delivery the machine did not work. THE complainant could not start his business for his livelihood. For this reason, the complainant suffered mental anxiety, agony as well as deterioration of economic condition. THEreafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the Forum praying for a direction upon the O.P. for supply of a new 3 H.P. machine as per the quotation submitted by him to the O.P. THE complainant also prayed for compensation, cost, repairing charges etc. The case was contested by the O.P. In its written version several grounds were taken against the complaint petition by the O.P., but most of them were dismissed by the Forum. The Forum directed the O.P.-Shreya Enterprises to refund the consideration money along with 12% interest from 25.8.2000 up to the date of actual payment. It further directed the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant only for causing mental agony and harassment by supplying a non-workable defective machine. The Forum also gave a direction to the O.P. to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of delivery of the order, failing which the complainant would be at liberty to get the desired relief by putting the order in execution.

Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Forum below the appellant-Shreya Enterprises has preferred the present appeal before the Commission. The appellant submits in its ''Grounds of appeal'' referring to a reported judgment passed by the Hon''ble National Commission, which has held that without proper quantification of actual loss so suffered by the complainant, Fora cannot grant any compensation. The appellant has prayed for to allow the appeal.

WE have perused the judgment and the records and notice that the present appellant had violated the agreement by supplying a 2 H.P. machine instead of 3 H.P. machine. The supplied machine was also defective. The respondent paid the full consideration money to the O.P. before installation of the said machine through a Bank loan. But due to the defectiveness of the machine the respondent could not start his business for his livelihood, but he was bound to pay the AMGR (Annual Minimum Guaranteed Revenue) to the Electric Department, as the connection was at industrial category. During hearing the respondent submits that now after so much of harassment of long four years he is not interested to get a new, defect-free machine, from the appellant as the relationship between them has become worse and if the appellant gets a chance to instal a new machine in his factory premises, its personnel will harass him in future. The respondent also submits that he has gained a bitter experience in respect of the conduct and behaviour of the appellant-Shreya Enterprises. WE notice that the respondent is not agreeing to continue the business relationship with the appellant. It is also submitted by the respondent that due to this defective machine he could not pay the instalments of the Bank and Bank is harassing him in every moment. WE find much substance in the argument advanced by the respondent himself. WE notice that the case was heard elaborately in the Forum and the Forum has taken a well-considered view directing the appellant-O.P. to refund the consideration money together with an interest @ 12% p.a. WE are of the opinion that the judgment passed by the Forum is quite in order and we are not inclined to disturb it. But regarding compensation, awarded by the Forum we are of the opinion that interest having been imposed on the principal amount, at the above rate will suffice for the purpose and granting of a further sum as compensation may not be necessary. Hence, it is ordered that the appellant-Shreya Enterprises shall refund the consideration money (Rs. 70,000/-) together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 25.8.2000 up to the date of actual payment. The order awarding compensation of Rs. 2,000/- as imposed by the Forum is set aside. Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part on contest and the judgment of the Forum below is affirmed also in part being modified to the above extent. Appeal partly allowed.