M.S.AUTO SERVICE CENTRE vs BHARAT JYOTI TECHANICALS

THIS complaint has been filed claiming damages for defective supply of machinery and short supply of accessories in the machine. THIS claim is against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 while against opposite party No. 3, it is prayed that the interest shall not be charged till the machines are repaired by opposite party No. 1. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was also claimed as compensation.

THE facts of the case, stated in brief, are that one Mumtaz Alam and Shiv Mukhtihi formed a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Auto Service Centre at Tulsi Road, Balrampur, in District Gonda. THE main work of the firm was to repair automobile engine, servicing etc. THE machines were purchased from opposite party No. 3 on hire purchase basis, price of which was Rs. 6,13,454/-. THE complainant contacted opposite party No. 3 for financial assistance which was permitted. THE machines are purchased from selected dealers approved by opposite party No. 3. Order for supply was placed on opposite party No. 1 on 29.5.1991. He was also informed that Kirloskar or Crompton motors should be fitted in the machines. Machines were sent by truck which were received on 19.9.1991. THE price of the machines were different from the bill No. 3 of the same date. Crankshaft grinding machine was not of export model but it appears that it was an old used machine which was welded and had holes at various places. Local motors were fixed in both these machines. Similarly many other defects had been pointed out in the complaint in para No. 7. The complainant sent a letter to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for changing the machine but till today nothing has been done by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 Reminders were given on telephone and replacement assurance was given but nothing has been done. It is further alleged that a letter was sent to the opposite party by the complainant but Sri R.N. Pandey, Joint Manager and Sri A.K. Srivastava, probably Inspector, came to the complainant''s house and after putting pressure, got the certificate of satisfactory working after making a promise to get the machine changed and to supply the deficient parts. But till today nothing has been done by any of the opposite parties and hence this complaint.

In the written statement opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have admitted supply of machines, but have denied that defective machines were supplied. It is alleged that the machines were of good quality and the complainant took delivery of the machines after full satisfaction and issued satisfactory certificate. There is no question of taking back the machines and supply another machine. The minor defects were got removed in time. It is alleged that the transaction was a commercial transaction and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint.

ON behalf of opposite party No. 3 it was admitted that financial assistance was supplied by it for purchase of machines worth Rs. 6,13,454/-, complainant''s firm being a SSI unit. The complainant was free to purchase machines from any supplier who is registered in the office of the opposite party No. 3. The machines were supplied in accordance with the schedule attached to the agreement and were of good quality. The opposite party did not issue any supply order to opposite party No. 1. Machines were new and satisfactory certificate was furnished by the complainant on 25.3.1992. The machines were supplied in time and hence No. 1 loss has been caused to the complainant. It is further alleged that the agreement took place in Delhi and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case. In the replication the complainant has alleged that the allegations of opposite parties are wrong.

OPPOSITE parties had filed evidence but the complainant did not file any evidence inspite of orders passed by this Commission. On the date of hearing none appeared from the side of the complainant even though the complainant was represented by a Counsel. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 and No. 3 were present who have been heard. As the complainant has not filed any evidence in support of his allegations contained in the complaint, therefore, the case of the complainant has not been proved. A question of jurisdiction has also been raised by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. A persual of the agreement dated 2nd of July, 1991 will go to show that it was executed at Delhi. Opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 carry on their business at Ludhiana and they do not have any branch office at this place. Mere impleading opposite party No. 3 jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the Commission, because it has merely financed the industry and it had no hands in supplying of the machine. Thus in view of these facts, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.

IN view of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove his case and this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the same. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. Let copy of this order be made available as per rules. Complaint dismissed.