SANJAY GUPTA vs RAMESH

THE present revision petition has been filed by one Sanjay Gupta, proprietor, Success Instruments (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) which had dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner, in favour of Mr. Ramesh (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent).

THE facts of the case are that the Respondent who was the original complainant before the District Forum had entered into an agreement with the Petitioner on 06.02.2005 whereby the Petitioner was to supply him a Sensui Weigh Bridge for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as per stipulated schedule of agreement of payment against the work done. THE Respondent paid the Petitioner in advance a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 07.05.2005 and as per the agreement the Petitioner had to supply the aforesaid electronic Weigh Bridge within two months. On 10.05.2005, the Petitioner supplied with six mounting assembly machines worth Rs.12,000/- and also asked for another Rs.25,000/- with the assurance that the remaining equipments would be installed within a week. However, despite several requests Petitioner failed to supply the Weigh Bridge within the stipulated time and instead informed Respondent that the price of the Weigh Bridge had increased to Rs.3,21,000/- because the platform constructed by respondent was made of old material and with wrong measurements because of which setting-up of an Electronic Weigh Bridge of 100 MT capacity was not possible. Further, Rs.50,000/- that had been taken in advance was the actual cost of the assembly machines. Aggrieved by this and after issuing a legal notice to which there was no response, the Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest a@ 18% and Rs.30,000/- for mental harassment and costs. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.38,000/- to the Respondent within two months because out of Rs.50,000/- already paid in advance, the cost of six mounting assembly worth Rs.12,000/- were deducted. Petitioner was further directed to pay the Respondent Rs.2,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the appeal. The operative part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows:

IN the whole of the agreement, there appears no terms under which the Platform of a particular size, and of a particular strength or a particular width, was required to be constructed by the respondent. IN view of this, it can not be said that respondent/complainant, was deficient in constructing the Platform of a particular size, width and strength and therefore, denial on the part of appellant/O.P. for erection of Weight Bridge on this ground does not appear justifiable and on this count alone, there appears deficiency in providing supply of the Weight Bridge and installing the same at the premises of the complainant/respondent. The next question is as to whether the amount awarded by the District Forum, is excessive and needs to be reduced. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Rs.50,000/-, were paid by the complainant/respondent to the appellant and this amount was spent by the appellant in providing 6 No. of Mounting Assembly, cost of Rs.8,250/- each, total cost Rs.49,500/- and its transportation charges is Rs.500/-. The counsel for the respondent/complainant per contra stated that the Mounting Assembly which was provided was valuing Rs.12,000/- only

IF the cost of 6 Nos. of Mounting Assembly was Rs.49,500/-, then this supply could not have been made by the appellant only against payment of Rs.25,000/- and therefore, the statement of complainant/respondent appears more convincing than the statement of the appellant/O.P. The appellant/O.P. was in possession of all necessary documents on the basis of which it could have been proved that the cost of 6 ns. of Mounting Assembly was not Rs.12,000/- but was in fact Rs.49,500/-. Such evidence was withheld by the appellant and therefore, adverse inference can also be drawn against the appellant and on this count also the statement of respondent/complainant appears more convincing. Apart from this before us respondent/complaint has filed quotation of Southern Weighing Instruments (P) Ltd., in which cost of 6 nos. of Mounting Assembly has been shown @ Rs.2,000/- each i.e. total Rs.12,000/- In view of the aforesaid discussion, were are convinced that the cost of 6 Nos. of Mounting Assembly was in fact only Rs.12,000/- and therefore, if award has been passed by the District Forum deducting Rs.12,000/- from the amount paid by the respondent/complainant to the appellant, then there appears no error in such award and it calls for no interference. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for Petitioner stated that petitioners bonafides could not be doubted because he had already, supplied six mounting assemblies costing about Rs.50,000/- to the Respondent. He reiterated that the work could not be got completed in time because of faulty construction of the platform by respondent as confirmed by a technical team. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on his part.

WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the evidence on record. WE note that the matter has been comprehensively and convincingly examined by the State Commission on the basis of evidence produced before it. It is for example apparent from the agreement entered into between the two parties that there was a clear schedule for completion of work and payments which was clearly violated by the petitioner without adequate justification. Further the petitioner asked for a large advance which was given and despite that the work was not completed as promised. The contention of the petitioner that the advance covered the cost of the six mounting assembly is also not convincing in the absence of any document to prove this fact. On the other hand, the respondent had filed the cost quotation of a company before the State Commission with clearly confirmed that the cost of mounting assemblies was only Rs.12,000/-. The findings of the fora below are findings of facts which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. WE therefore, uphold the well-reasoned order of the State Commission with the modification that the petitioner be directed to pay the respondent a sum of Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.38,000/- and in turn the 6 mounting assemblies be returned by the respondent to the petitioner because these will obviously be of no use to the respondent in the absence of the rest of the equipment required for the WEigh Bridge. The petitioner is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as mental and physical harassment and Rs.1,000/- as costs. The above-mentioned payment should be made within one month from the date of passing of this order failing which the petitioner will be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. The revision petition is disposed of in above terms.