Tarun Industrial Corporation, , Balwinder Singh, Proprietor vs Naveen Aggarwal , Puneet Aggarwal

THIS revision petition is filed by M/s Tarun Industrial Corporation against concurrent orders of the District Forum-1, Chandigarh and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT of Chandigarh. The two petitioners, namely the firm and its proprietor, were the original OPs before the District Forum.

THE case of the Complainant, as seen from the record, was that on 13.12.2010 it had placed order on the OPs for supply of a Flexo Paper Printing Machine. An advance of Rs.1 lakh was paid towards this purchase. The opposite parties had agreed to deliver the machine within 20 days but no delivery had been made till the date when a legal notice was issued on 27.2.2011. Later, in the reply of 10.3.2011 to the legal notice, the OPs made a counter allegation that the machine had been ready within 20 days but the buyer had failed to takes its delivery. Therefore, in his prayer before the District Forum, the Complainant sought not only refund of the advance with interest but also compensation of loss suffered as well as for mental agony and harassment. As against this, the Written Response of the OPs before the District Forum has called the complaint frivolous and an abuse of the process of law. It has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost. The District Forum decided that it was a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the OPs were directed to refund the advance of Rs.1 lakh with Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.11,000/- towards cost.

The State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum with the following observations:- "Had the machine been ready for delivery, the appellants/Opposite Parties, would have certainly written letter (s), within 20 days, from the date of placing the order, or immediately, thereafter, but they did not do so. The District Forum was right, in holding, that the Opposite Parties, failed to prove, that the machine, in question, was ready for delivery to the complainants, within 20 days, from the date of placing the order, vide Annexure C-6 dated 13.12.2010. The District Forum, was, thus, right in holding, that the Opposite Parties, just concocted a story, that the machine was ready for delivery, within 20 days, but the complainants, being in shortage of funds, did not want to take its delivery. The District Forum, was, also right in holding, that by not supplying the machine, for which an order was placed by the complainants, with the Opposite parties, within the stipulated time, they were deficient, in rendering service. "

WE have heard Mr. Udip Singh, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioner and perused the records as submitted. Perusal of the revision petition clearly shows that it is nothing but an attempt to reopen questions of facts on which concurrent findings have been reached by the fora below. Even during the course of the augments learned counsel for the revision petitioner could not raise any issues of illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order for invoking of the jurisdiction of the Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. From the close scrutiny of the records, we find that the fora below had sufficient justification to reject the case of the present revision petitioner. The record shows that on 19.1.2011 a letter was addressed by the vendor/OP to the purchaser/Complainant clearly stating that, "You will be informed once machine is ready. Testing of machine has to be done at our premises. " This completely destroys the credibility of the claim of the revision petitioner that the machine was ready for supply on 31.12.2010 itself. Secondly, there is nothing on record to show that the buyer was informed (other than unsubstantiated claims of telephonic intimation) that the machine was ready, before the purported letter of 2.2.2011 in which the buyer was informed that if the machine is not taken within seven days the advance will be forfeited.

WE therefore, hold that the conclusions reached in the impugned order are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed for want of merit. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we also deem it appropriate to award additional cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in favour of the Complainant.