R.C.LACHHIRAMKA vs Eastern Coalfields Ltd

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Tine complainant is one R.C. Lachhiramka and the opposite parties are M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and their Officers and Agents. The petitioner''s case is that the opposite party 1 M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. had advertised for the sale of two Tipping Trucks through M/s. Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Ltd. (opposite party-5). In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner took steps for the purchase of two Tipping Trucks and deposited an amount of Rs. 58,000/- being the price of the trucks as the highest bidder. Before depositing the amount, the petitioner had also deposited an earnest amount of Rs. 2,400 / -. It has been alleged that when the petitioner had gone to take delivery of the Trucks in response to the letter of the opposite parties, they found that the truck was without any engine. The petitioner immediately drew the attention of the opposite parties to the condition of the truck and waited for getting delivery of a complete trucks. For this purpose, he made several correspondences to the opposite parties and the opposite parties had also assured them to give delivery of the trucks in satisfactory condition. After a protracted correspondence the petitioner was frustrated and found that the opposite parties could not give delivery of the trucks. He accordingly prayed for refund of the price which he had already deposited with the opposite parties alongwith compensation for loss of income, harassment, mental agony etc.

THE case is contested by the opposite parties by filing a written objection. In their objection, they have contended that the petitioner is not a consumer and as such not entitled to file a complaint. As regards the material allegations they have given a bare denial of the allegations without refuting specifically any of the complaints. The matter was heard at length. As regards the allegations that the petitioner is not a consumer it is argued that the truck, was purchased for re-sale and business purpose and there was no deficiency in goods which could be agitated before a Consumer Court. There is no doubt that the petitioner has alleged that the goods which were given to him for taking delivery, were defective. There is, however, no evidence that the trucks in question were being purchased for re-sale. As this point has been raised by the opposite parties, it was on their part to prove the point but they have not tried to prove that it was actually purchased for re-sale or for business purpose. Hence, we reject this objection. We have also taken note of the arguments of the petitioner that the trucks in question were being purchased by them for earning their livelihood. In our opinion, the complaint is maintainable. Even it we take into consideration the allegation that there was deficiency In service on the part of the opposite parties, the point also merits consideration. Admittedly, two trucks were purchased for good consideration. Evidently, the trucks could not be delivered to the petitioner. It has further been stated in the written objection that the opposite parties had offered good and serviceable trucks, but the petitioner failed to take delivery of the same. From the large number of correspond ence, it is found that the petitioner actually tried his utmost to get delivery of the trucks on several occasions and we totally disbelieve the statement of the opposite parties that they were reluctant to take delivery of the trucks although they were offered in good condition. In fact, the opposite parties have adduced no evidence of any kind to prove their point of defence. They have also not explained why the trucks could not be delivered in a good and serviceable condition. In view of the matter, we are satisfied that the opposite parties have failed to honour their contract for delivery of the trucks which, in our opinion, is a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. They have no right to retain the consideration money which has already been appropriated by them without giving delivery of the trucks as per their survey report. This is an unfair trade practice on their part and justice demands that the consideration money already deposited with them as per Annexure ''C'' dated 7.12.1991 should be refunded with interest. Hence, this case is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 58,000/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand only) to the petitioner with an interest @ p.a. w.e.f. 27.12.1991 till the date of payment. They are also directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioner. The case is, thus, disposed of. Appeal allowed with costs.