Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President;
Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi & Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Members
SIVANI TAILORING POINT & READYMADE GARMENTS—Complainant
versus
M/S. NAGINI ENTERPRISES & ANR.—Opposite Parties
C.D. No 189 of 1991—Decided on 25.4.1995
For the Complainant :Mrs. J. Sivalakshmi, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. B. Krishna Rao & Mr. Y.N. Lohitha, Advocates.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17 read with Section 12 Section 2(1)(d)(i) - State Financial Corporation Act - Section 46-B Complainant placed order with opposite party No.1 for supply of machinery - - Machinery supplied - Defective to replaced - Complaint filed - First dispute party denied allegations - Disputed machinery purchased for commercial purpose - Complaint not maintainable - Second opposite party contending that complaint not maintainable under Section 46-B of State Financial Corporation Act Commission ordered opposite party No.
1 to replace defective machinery - Not replaced - Opposite party No. 1 liable to refund amount received towards cost of machinery - Compensation granted.
Held: Keeping in view all these circumstances we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 1.50.000/- would be a reasonable amount towards loss suffered by the complainant. The amount has to be paid as compensation by the first opposite party to the complainant apart from replacing the machinery. Since the opposite party No.1 failed to replace the machinery till now, though he was directed by this Commission on 28-4-1994 to do so about one year ago and as there is no likelihood of the opposite party No. 1 replacing the old machinery, the opposite party No.1 is liable to refund an amount of Rs. 1.63.940/ - received by him towards the cost of the machinery on 22-10-1990. As the cost of the machinery has gone up during the last 4-1/2 years, the opposite party No. 1 has to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 18%p.a. from22-101990 till the date of payment.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1.50,000/ - (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation within two months from the date of this order failing which he shall pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of two months till the date of payment and also a sum of Rs. 1.63.940/- (Rupees one lakh sixty three thousand nine hundred and forty only) being the cost of the machinery together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 22-10-1990 till the date of payment and a sum of Rs. 3.000/- towards costs within two months from the date of this order.
(Paras 10 & 11)
Result: Complaint partly allowed.
Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Member—A complaint filed under Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The allegations in the complaint briefly stated are as follows :
The complainant is an unemployed woman and was selected as a candidate for financial assistance by the A.P. State Financial Corporation, Karimnagar Branch (opposite party No. 2) to start a ready made garments unit. The A.P. State Financial Corporation sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,88,600/- to the complainant by its order dated 19.9.90 for the said purpose. An amount of Rs. 1,87,580/- out of the said loan amount was sanctioned towards purchase of the required machinery. Thereupon the complainant placed an order with M/s. Nagini Enterprises, Karimnagar (opposite party No. 1) for the supply of the required machinery. The first opposite party sent a proforma invoice on 26.9.90 to the second opposite party. Thereafter the second opposite party issued a letter to the first opposite party agreeing for supply of the said machinery consisting of the following items.
1. Brother /Juki Button Hole stitching machine complete with stand, table and motor.
2. Juki Button stitching complete with stand, table and motor.
3. Anson Zigzag machine complete with stand, table and motor.
4. Juki 2366 live thread overlock machine complete with stand and motor.
5. Anson Sewing machine complete with stand and table.
6. Tapes, Scissors etc.
7. Cutting Table.
The opposite party No. 1 supplied only the following machinery as per their bill dated 19.10.90.
1. Brother Butt on hole stitching machine complete with stand, table and motor.
2. Brother button stitching complete with stand, table and motor.
3. Anson Zigzag machine complete with stand and motor.
4. Juki 2366 fine thread over locking machine complete with stand and motor.
5. Merit sewing machine complete with stand and table.
3. The technical officer of the opposite party No. 2 examined the said machinery on the same day and signed on the credit bill and recommend for the release of the 90% of the cost. The complainant also requested the opposite party No. 2 to release 90% of the cost of the said machinery. However, the machinery condition was not certified by the technical officer of the opposite party No. 2 as the machinery was not installed at that time. On 28.10.90, the complainant brought a mechanic from Hyderabad for assembling and installing the machinery and got it tested before the representative of the first opposite party. But the following defects were found on that day; Brother button hole stitching machine was broken and jammed and it was not fit for installation and some other parts of the machine were missing in Brother Button Stitching machine and the Juki 2366 fine thread overlock machine and found to be a second hand machine. On the next day, the complainant brought all these defects to the notice of the first opposite party and the first opposite party promised to replace the said machinery at an early date. Subsequently the technical officer of the second opposite party inspected the unit alongwith the first opposite party and enquired about the condition of the machinery from the first opposite party who could not give a satisfactory reply. Then the technical officer of the second opposite party asked the complainant as to why she signed the letter for release of the 90% of the cost of the machinery supplied by the first opposite party. The complainant being an innocent woman and not being well versed with the technical aspects of the machinery signed the letter for release of the cost of the machinery and issued a letter for the said purpose only on the recommendation of the technical officer of the second opposite party. She came to know about the defects in the machinery only after the mechanic of Hyderabad pointed out these defects while installing the same. At the instance of the technical officer of the second opposite party, the complainant met the second opposite party in their office on the
