Lakshmi Narayan Rice Mill vs FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

IN this complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,18,550/ - from the opposite party.

THE complainant is ISRO, Satellite Centre. The opposite party is a dealer in Computer Instrumentations. The complainant purchased two instrumentation Controllers -Model IF -40 from the opposite party for the purpose of its research work in the field of space technology on 15.3.90, for a sum of Rs. 69,900/ - each. That opposite party delivered two units of the Instrumentation Controllers to the complainant on 17.5.90. The complainant made payment of a sum of Rs. 1,18,550/ - towards payment of 80% of the value of the two units supplied by the opposite party. The said supply was covered one years warranty. It is the grievance of the complainant that the said units when inspected by its staff found to be defective. The complainant immediately on 31.5.90 asked the opposite party to replace the items. The opposite party did not rectify the defects in the units, in consequence of which the research work of the complainant retarded.

THE complainant subsequently by its letter on 10.9.90 informed the opposite party to take back the units and refund the money collected. Even then the opposite party did not respond to the request of the complainant.

IT is the further case of the complainant that subsequently after much correspondence on 11.6.91, the opposite party issued a letter agreeing to refund the amount collected and take the machinery back. But thereafter the opposite party did not refund the amount and take back the machineries from the complainant. So the complainant filed the complaint seeking the relief of refund of the said sum of Rs. 1,18,550/ - and also for payment of compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The opposite party filed its version and admitted the fact of sale of two units of Instrumentation Controllers Model IF 40 to the complainant and its delivery on 17.5.90 and also receipt of 80% of the value of the units from the complainant.

THE opposite party further admitted the fact that there was certain defects pointed out by the complainant in the units which were promptly attended to by it. The opposite party at Paras 3 and 4 of its statement of objections averred thus : ''The promptness of the respondent in attending to the complaints of the complainant is evidenced by the letters dated 6.8.90,10.8.90 and 17.9.90 addressed to the complainant and also in his absence, the service engineer of the respondent had answered all the wild distress calls of the complainant. 4. It is submitted that the respondent thereafter rectified the defects and even replaced the monitor of one of the items supplied and set right the system satisfactorily in all respects as per his letter dated 10.8.90.''

THE opposite party further averred that it had even supplied an additional unit to replace the unit if any found to be giving certain problems. The opposite party nextly averred that all the units supplied and the additional unit supplied were still with the complainant and were being used by the complainant. The opposite party, on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed.

DURING enquiry the complainant filed the affidavit of the Head of the Purchase and Stores section of the complainant -Organisation and the affidavit of its Engineer and also an officer of the complainant organisation one Balakrishnan. The complainant got Exs. C1 to C 11 marked in evidence. The opposite party did neither lead any evidence nor filed the affidavit in evidence. No documents came to be marked in evidence.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the complainant perused the pleadings and the material on record. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party supplied two units of Instrumentation Controllers Model IF 40 to the complainant, a space research organisation and obtained 80% of the value of the units of Rs. 1,18,550/ - from the complainant.

IT is the grievance of the complainant that both the units from the date of its supply began to give trouble. The opposite party belatedly attempted to rectify the defects in the units but the defects could not be rectified.

THE opposite party admitted the fact that there were certain defects which he attended to and rectified them. The Head of the Purchase and Stores Officer Sri Viswanadham has filed the affidavit and stated that the units supplied by the opposite party were defective and after taking all necessary steps on investigation and study came to the conclusion based on the technical assessment that the items were of inferior quality; far below the approved standard and so the supply was rejected. That is also the evidence given by the officer of the complainant Sri Balakrishnan. The complainants Engineer Sri. Nageshwar Rao has filed the affidavit and given the details of the defects found in the units supplied by the opposite party. There was ''Hanging'' problem in the units. There was also problems in the system of the units. The Key Board gets locked even when the system was not running. The Monitor does not go blank when the key board was locked. This problem was observed while using word star. In the first unit the B drive was of readi - some floppy disks. In both the units it was observed that certain programes were not running such as Norton utilities and PC TOOLS. The programes show error at the start. The programme did not run either from hard disk or from floppy drives.

THIS is the evidence given by the Engineer of the complainant who had operated the units. The opposite party has not placed any material on record to rebut this material placed on record by the complainant.

THE complainant had averred at para 10 of the complaint thus : ''10. After much correspondence between the parties the respondent on 11.6.91 issued a letter agreeing in principle to return the amount and take the machineries back ''

The opposite party did not deny this fact in its version.

THE complainant has filed the copy of the said letter dated 11.6.91 given by the opposite party to the complainant as per Ex. C1. The said letter Ex. C 1 reads as under : ''Dear Sir, Your Ref. ISAC/ PAV/ 9NA/ 0144L dated 3.6.91. With reference to the above letter we like to inform you that the amount collected by us was against delivery of material and it was not advance. Even though we owe Rs. 1,03,740/ - to you our material worth Rs.2 lacks is lying with you. Since this much of our material is held up we are also eager to get the material released at the earliest so that it can been useful for us. But due to some unavoidable difficulties so far we were unable to pay you the amount. We will arrange to pay you the amount within a few days time, since we have made arrangement for the amount. In case your are unable to wait and are eager to take legal action which will again delay the matter you are free to do so, for which we will reply through legal channel. We hope we will settle the matter mutually for benefit of both of us. Thanking you.''

THIS would clearly go to show that the opposite party has virtually admitted the fact that the Units supplied by it were defective in nature and agreed to take back the units and refund the amount given by the complainant towards 80% of the value of those units. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the units supplied by the opposite party to the complainant were defective in nature and the complainant is entitled to get back the amount given to the opposite party towards the purchase value of the units supplied by the opposite party to the complainant.

IN the result, therefore, this complainant is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,18,550/ - with interest at 18% p.a. from 1.6.90 till the date of its payment to the complainant.

THE complainant shall handover the said units supplied by the opposite party on receipt of the said amount of Rs. 1,18,550/ - with interest thereon from the opposite party. The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/ - to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings of this complaint.

THE opposite party shall pay the sums so awarded to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of this order. Complaint allowed with costs.