GMMCO Ltd. vs Ecovinal International Pvt. Ltd.

COMPLAINANT /Respondent purchased 250 KVA CAT Diesel Generator Set from the Petitioner at a total cost of Rs. 11,65,000 on 9.12.2005 with a warranty of one year. After purchase of the said generator set, Petitioner installed the same in the premises of the Respondent''s plant at Kunigal. Within a period of a month or two, the D.G set started giving trouble. Complainant noticed the defects such as oil consumption of the engine was very high, engine hunting problem and fuel pressure gauge was burst. Respondent brought the said, defects to the notice of the Petitioner to rectify the same immediately or to replace the engine but all its efforts were in vain. Respondent issued a legal notice on 17.5.2006 which was not responded to by the Petitioner. Respondent thereafter filed the complaint before the District Forum. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the Petitioner. In spite of service, Petitioner did not appear and was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. In order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint, Respondent filed its affidavit in evidence and produced some documents.

TAKING the facts stated in the complaint supported by the affidavit in evidence and other documents, District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to replace the defective 250 KVA CAT Diesel Generator Set with a new set within two months from the date of communication of the order failing which the Petitioner was directed to refund the purchase value of Rs. 11,50,000 together with interest @ 9% p.a. from January, 2006 till realization and also to pay litigation costs of Rs. 5,000. Petitioner was put at liberty to take back the defective D.G. set supplied by it to the Respondent. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, Petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Petitioner took the plea before the State Commission that it did not contest the complaint because of the letter dated 15.9.2006 written by the Complainant which reads as under: Please refer to our today''s telecon with regard to the notice from Consumer Forum. This notice be ignored as the matter is being mutually settled out of Consumer Forum. Please continue your support as promised.

STATE Commission rejected this plea by observing that the Petitioner could not ignore the notice issued by the District Forum on the basis of the letter written by the Respondent. Further plea taken by the Petitioner that the complainant was not a consumer and the complaint was not maintainable because the transaction in question was of commercial nature was rejected by observing that as to whether the transaction in question is a commercial or not ought to have been proved by the Petitioner by leading evidence before the District Forum. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the Petitioner did not appear in spite of service and was proceeded ex parte. Petitioner did not controvert the averments made in the complaint. Petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that the D.G. Set had been purchased by the Respondent for a commercial purpose. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the Petitioner could not ignore the notice issued by the District Forum only on the basis of the letter written by the Respondent. The facts stated in the complaint duly supported by the evidence led by the Respondent, remained uncontroverted. Under these circumstances, the fora below did not commit any error in allowing the complaint taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct which were duly supported by the affidavit in evidence.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

Revision Petition dismissed.