POPPYS VLLEY PVT.LTD vs MODULAR COLD ROOMS(P)LTD

THE complainant is running cottage type star level hotel at Thirumuruganpoondi under the name and style "Poppys Valley Hotel". THE complainant company engaged the opposite party Company M/s. Modular Cold Rooms (P) Ltd., for providing and erecting machineries for the cold rooms. On 28.1.1995, the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party as per which a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- was to be paid to the opposite party towards the cost and service charges for the machinery to be supplied and erected in the two cold rooms of the complainant and one stand-by compressor. A sum of Rs. 4,10,390/- was paid by the complainant retaining a sum of Rs. 39,610/-. THE case of the complainant is that from the beginning of installation of the two old compressors there were problems. Inspite of several complaints, the opposite party failed and neglected to repair the compressors even though as per the terms of the agreement the opposite party should rectify the faults within hours of report. Because of the said defect in the compressors, foodstuff worth Rs. 60,000/- stored have been completely spoiled. On an earlier occasion also the complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 1,50,000/-. THE two compressors were inherently defective. On the promise made by the opposite party that the machinery would function to the satisfaction of the complainant, the complainant paid the retained amount of Rs. 39,600/- by way of a cheque dated 15.3.1996. It was agreed that the cheque could be presented for encashment only after the defects were rectified. Since the defects were not so rectified, the complainant had to advise "Stop Payment" to their Bankers. THE complainant issued a Lawyer''s notice to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- towards the loss of food stuff because of the non- functioning of the compressors and a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs towards damages. But the opposite party did not give any reply thereto. On these allegations, the complaint has been filed.

THE opposite party in their written version contends that they had installed two brand new Batliboi make compressors and it was due to heavy rain and consequential water logging, the terminals of the 2nd compressor were damaged. In addition, the complainant did not have qualified personnel to properly operate the compressors and therefore due to the mishandling of the terminals the compressors were damaged. Even though these external factors are not the responsibility of either the manufacturer M/s. Batliboi or the opposite party, still, with a view to maintain good relationship, the opposite party requested M/s. Batliboi to attend to the complaints and accordingly M/s. Batliboi replaced the compressors free of cost. THEn again, when due to the defective operation and mishandling the compressors developed problems, the opposite party rectified the same two-three times. But instead of being grateful, the complainant has filed this vexatious complaint. THE complainant has not made out any case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and it was due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the complainant the damage to the compressors had occurred. THErefore, the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The points for consideration are : (1) whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; and (2) if so, what relief, if any, the complainant can be granted?

While it is the case of the complainant that the opposite party delivered old compressors and immediately after installation they functioned defectively and therefore the complainant has sustained loss, the opposite party would contend that in fact the two compressors first installed were brand new ones, and there were no inherent defects, and because of heavy rain and consequential water logging and also because of the mishandling of the terminals by the complainant due to lack of qualified personnel the defects had occurred, and hence the opposite party is not liable. The complainant has not led in any evidence, documentary or oral, to establish his case that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. He has filed only two documents viz., Exs. A-l and A-2; and they are (1) Lawyer''s notice sent by him and (2) reply notice therefor. Whatever the complainant has stated in Ex. A-l has been denied by the opposite party in its reply notice Ex. A-2. As such, the allegations in the complaint against the opposite party absolutely stand unsubstantiated and unproved.

IN these circumstances, the complaint cannot but be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.