AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AGAINST the order passed by the lower Forum on 9.4.1999 in O.P. No. 128/1998 this appeal is preferred. The complainant''s case is that the complainant placed an order for supply of machinery and accordingly the opposite party supplied machineries on 26.6.1997. A bill for Rs. 77,841.15 was sent and the District Industries Centre, Thanjavur, through Indian Overseas Bank issued a cheque for payment of the amount. After errection of the machinery, the complainant applied for service connection and obtained the same in the month of January, 1998. Only when the complainant put the machinery to operation to his astonishment he found that item No. 1 was a 2 H.P. and not 1 H.P. as described in the cash bill dated 26.6.1997. Similarly item No. 2 was a 5 H.P. motor instead of 1 H.P. motor and the motor supplied to the complainant can be run only on 3 phase instead of single phasa. Therefore, the action of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
THE opposite party did not choose to file any version though they appeared by Counsel. After hearing both the parties, the lower Forum dismissed the complaint and aggrieved by the same the complainant has preferred this appeal. Point : The complainant''s case is that he obtained necessary loan through the District Industries Centre, Thanjavur, for starting a flour mill in Kallaperambur village and that for that purpose he placed orders with the opposite party and the opposite party delivered machinery to the complainant on 26.6.1997 and issued a bill accordingly. But, strangely he would say that it is only after January, 1998 he came to know that different machineries were supplied to him and not the machineries ordered by him. Therefore, to begin with the complainant''s case is quite artificial. If the complainant has placed orders for supply of machineries, the opposite party would have only supplied the machineries asked for and not something different. More so, when the payment was made by the District Industries Centre through Bank for the machineries supplied. Ex. A15 makes it clear that the complainant received 1 H.P. Single Phase Motor Delux Model Mini Pulverising Flour Grinder and another 1 H.P. Motor Open Model Mini Pulverising Flour Grinder with suitable accessories. The complainant''s documents belie his own case. The document reads only with suitable "H.P. single phase motor" but it has been scored out in ink and written as 5 H.P. Motor and 2 H.P. Motor. It is not shown by whom it has been written. Ex. A15 is the delivery challan which clearly mention of only one H.P single phase motor with 3 number screen and 1 H.P. motor with 3 number screen and single phase motor. It is also to be pointed out that in the motor supplied, there will be definitely metal tags attached showing the name of the motor, the manufacturer, the capacity of the motor and other technical particulars. Therefore, having been possession of the same, as early as in July 1997 for the complainant to allege in the year 1998 that different machineries were supplied to him and that there is deficiency is impossible to accept. If really, he was suplied with different machineries, one would have expected him to inform the opposite party or at least the District Industries Centre so that the payment could have been stopped. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant has come forward with an untenable claim. Therefore, the lower Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. We do not see any merit in this appeal.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 250/- confirming the order of the lower Forum. Time for compliance : Two months. Appeal dismissed.