MAHABUBNAGAR CITIZENS COUNCIL vs BIJLI MACHINE TOOLS SALES

THE Mahaboobnagar Citizens Council represented by its President, Anantharam Kongara, filed C.D. No. 201/91 .in the District Forum of Mahaboobnagar.

ACCORDING to the complaint, the opposite party quoted the prices of lathe machines and other items mentioned in Quatation No.997 dated 5-7-91. While issuing the quotation, the opposite party informed the consumer that after the Budget of the Union Government, the rates will be increased and if the consumer keeps some amount with them, the machinery will be supplied at the rates mentioned in the quotation. The consumer made it clear that he is trying for a loan from the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, and if he gets the loan, the machinery will be purchased. Relieving the representation and also believing the assurance of the prices quoted by the opposite party, the consumer sent Rs. 5,000/- through Bank Draft No. 025889 dated 6,7.91 on the Indian Overseas Bank, Mahaboobnagar. But by letter dated 23.7.91 requested the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- as he is not in a position to obtain the loan from the A.P. State Financial Corporation and purchased the machinery. But the opposite party by letter dated 25.7.91 informed the consumer that the amount will not be refunded and asked the consumer to try for the loan from some other source. Aggrieved by the attitude of the opposite party, the consumer wrote a letter dated 29.7.91 requesting the opposite party for the refund of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- within ten days as the consumer has not placed any order with the opposite party, and that therefore, the opposite party cannot retain Rs. 5,000/- with him. Hence the complaint was filed claiming refund of Rs. 5,000/- which was paid, with a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages with 24% interest and costs and the expenses of the complaint. After the service of notice, the opposite party was set ex-parte. After perusing the complaint along with the connected documents, the District Forum by its order dated 5.10.91 directed refund of Rs. 5,000/- sent by the complainant with 12% p.a. simple interest from the date of payment till realisation and also awarded Rs. 200/- towards costs, within one month from the date of this order.

Aggrieved by the same, the opposite party filed C.D.A. No. 289/91. The complainant also filed C.D.A. No. 358/91 questioning the order of the District Forum in not ordering compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- as claimed and also interest at 24% p.a.

THE Counsel for the appellant in C.D.A. No. 289/91 was absent. On a perusal of the documents and the order of the District Forum, it is seen that the material document dated 5.7.91 is merely a quotation which is not an order. THE evidence of payment . of Rs. 5,000/- is born out by the D.D. Since the complainant has not placed any order for supply on the basis of the mere quotation, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which was received by the opposite party cannot be retained with him as there was no contract entered into between the complainant and the opposite party for supply of machinery, and there is no material to show that Rs. 5,000/- was advanced for the supply of machinery. THE opposite party is not entitled to retain the same. We are therefore of the view that the District Forum is right in directing refund of Rs. 5,000/- received from the consumer with interest at 12% p.a. Hence, we see no merits in the appeal and the C.D.A. No. 289/91 is dismissed with costs of Rs. 200/-. C.D. Appeal No. 358/91:- In the appeal preferred by the complainant, i.e., C.D.A. No. 358/ 91, Sri Anantaram Kongara, party-in-person, vehemently submitted that he is entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,000/-, in addition to refund of Rs. 5,000/- directed by the forum. There is no agreement between the parties and therefore it cannot be said that the opposite party has violated any terms of the agreement to enable the complainant to claim any compensation. It also cannot be said that on account of the delay in refund of the amount, the complainant has suffered any damage except the loss of interest. We therefore feel, in the circumstances of the case, that the order of the District Forum is proper and there are no grounds for awarding additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and also enhancement of the interest.

IN the result, the appeal i.e., C.D.A. No. 358/ 91 is dismissed. No costs. C.D.A. 289/91 dismissed with costs. C.D.A. 358/91 dismissed.