PADMA AUTO ELECTRICALS vs T.P.SUBRAMONIAN

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kozhikode in OP No. 813/ 92. The opposite party is the appellant.

THOUGH notice was issued to respondent and it was served on him, there is no appearance. We heard the Counsel for the appellant and also perused the documents and records. The case of the complainant is that on 28.2.1992 in connection with the repair of his autoriksha, the complainant asked the opposite party for an API Cylinder Block and an IPL Piston Assembly, and the opposite party supplied a Cylinder Block and an IPL Piston for consideration of Rs. 840/-. What was demanded was API Cylinder Block but what was supplied to him was a false one. The price collected was also excess. Further within a week the piston became defective. The matter was reported to the opposite party by a registered letter but nothing was done by the opposite party. It is on these allegations the complaint was filed.

The opposite party filed a version stating that what he had supplied was Daya Cylinder and IPL Piston. He denied that the complainant demanded API Cylinder. There was no guarantee. He also did not overcharge as contended by the complainant. The complainant examined himself as CW 1 and another mechanic was also examined a CW 2 in support of the case of the complainant. Exbts. Al to A6 were also marked. As against this, the opposite party was examined as OPW 1 and Exbts. B1 series and B2 were produced.

EXBT. Al is the cash bill issued to the complainant by the opposite party. It revealed the items purchased by the complainant included a cylinder block priced at Rs. 600/- and an IPL Piston assembly priced at Rs. 240/-. They were produced before the District Forum as material objects and marked MO. 1 series. Complainant gave evidence that what was asked by him was API Cylinder Block and IPL Piston assembly. This evidence was corroborated by CW 2 the mechanic of the workshop who accompanied him. Letters API are seen inscribed on the cylinder block which was produced before the District Forum. The complainant''s case is instead of API Cylinder a fake one was supplied to him. CW 2 who is an experienced mechanic deposed that M.O.1 Cylinder is a fake one. It is further stated when the opposite party was informed about this, opposite party sent EXBT. A 3 reply stating that the cylinder was manufactured by one Daya Auto Industries of New Delhi. The complainant deposed that he tried to contact them by sending a registered letter on the address furnished by the opposite party, but the envelope containing the letter was returned undelivered with the postal endorsement no such firm. EXBT. A 4 is the envelope returned. The opposite party appears to have admitted in his cross-examination that the firm was not in existence. In the cross-examination OPW 1 stated that the cylinder supplied by him carried guarantee. On further cross examination about his statement in the reply EXBT. A 3 that there was no guarantee he replied that he cannot say anything about that. He also admitted in the cross-examination that there is inscription IPL in the cylinder. He further stated he does not remember the address of the Auto Industries and he had realised that the firm was not in existence in that address. CW 2 also stated that the Cylinder was defective and because of defect of cylinder, piston also became defective. It is on the basis of these materials the District Forum came to the conclusion that the cylinder supplied was defective and passed an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 2,500/- with interest and cost of Rs. 750/-. Feeling aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred.

LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant raised two main contentions. The complainant in his notice stated that he realised the cylinder was defective when a qualified engineer told him that the cylinder was defective but that engineer was not examined in the case and that would be fatal to the complainant as his would have been the best evidence. We are unable to agree with the contention of learned Counsel CW 2 who is an experienced mechanic has given evidence that the cylinder supplied was defective and it was false one. We do not find any reason to disbelieve either CW 1 or CW 2. Another ground raised by learned Counsel is that Exbt. B 1 series would show that manufacturing industries was in existence that the conclusion of the District Forum was very much influenced by the fact that the envelope sent by complainant was returned with endorsement that no such firm in existence. Invoices B1 produced were issued in the year 1990. No invoice for the relevant period was produced to establish that really the firm still exists. If really the firm was in existence it would have been possible to the opposite party to produce documents available with them for supply of the above articles. In the circumstances we do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel lastly contended that the amounts ordered to be paid as compensation and price of the cylinder block and piston assembly and repair charges are on the high side. Exbt. A 1 shows the price of cylinder and piston is Rs. 840/-. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the same together with interest at the rate of 12%. The complainant admittedly spent amounts for fitting cylinder and piston with autoriksha and also spent further amounts for repairs after the cylinder and piston became defective. There is no clear evidence as to what is the exact amount spent for repairs. We fix the repair charges at Rs. 350/-. The complainant''s case that could not run the autoriksha for 7 days has to be accepted but the amount awarded as compensation is on high side. We fix the conpensation on that ground at Rs. 500/-. Thus the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 840/- the price paid together with interest @ 12% from 28.7.1992. Towards repair charges and compensation the complainant would be entitled to Rs. 850/-. The complainant would be also entitled to get Rs. 350/- towards his cost before the District Forum. The order of the District Forum is modified to above extent. The amounts will be paid within one month. Order modified.