Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADRAS
Hon’ble Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President &
Thiru V.S. Kandasamy, Member
SABOO ENGINEERING WORKS—Appellant
versus
NAVIND GRANITES PVT. LTD.—Respondent
A.P. No. 553 of 1995—Decided on 15.12.1995
For the Appellant :M/s. P.K. Jena & A.K. Mohapatra, Advocates.
For the Respondent: In Person.
A consumer cannot call upon the seller to demonstrate the production of goods of a particular size or quality if the consumer has been using the goods for a long time and has violated the guarantee clause in the quotation by fitting the goods with spare parts purchased from other companies and not from the seller.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 - SECTION 15(b) - CONSUMER DISPUTE - DEFECTIVE GOODS - REFUND - COMPENSATION - COURT HELD THAT THE COMPLAINANT CANNOT CALL UPON THE OPPOSITE PARTIES TO DEMONSTRATE PRODUCE QUARTZ OF SIZE OF 30/ 80 MESH AS THE COMPLAINANT HAD BEEN RUNNING THE PLANT FOR THE LAST 10 MONTHS AND THEY WERE PRODUCING QUARTZ OF THE SIZE DIFFERENT FROM 30/ 80 MESH WHICH IS A VIOLATION ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANTS.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant placed an order with the opposite party for supply of a Mineral Processing Plant. The opposite party received the value of the plant and also the Supervision charges for Fitting and Demonstration at the site. The plant was transported from Nawa City to Uthukuli. The complainant alleged that the opposite party failed to demonstrate production of quartz of the size of 30/80 mesh and claimed a refund of the supervision charges and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant had been running the plant for the last 10 months and they were producing quartz of the size different from 30/ 80 mesh which is a violation on the side of the complainants. The court also found that the complainant had fitted the plant with spare parts purchased from other companies and not from the opposite party, which was a violation of the guarantee clause in the quotation.
Issues: 1. Whether the opposite party is liable to demonstrate production of quartz of the size of 30/ 80 mesh? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a refund of the supervision charges and compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant cannot call upon the opposite parties to demonstrate produce quartz of size of 30/ 80 mesh as the complainant had been running the plant for the last 10 months and they were producing quartz of the size different from 30/ 80 mesh which is a violation on the side of the complainants. The court also held that the complainant is not entitled to a refund of the supervision charges and compensation as the complainant had violated the guarantee clause in the quotation by fitting the plant with spare parts purchased from other companies and not from the opposite party.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—The opposite party Saboo Engineering Works against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant.
2. The complainant M/s. Navind Granites Pvt. Ltd., (respondent herein) placed an order with the opposite party for supply of a Mineral Processing Plant for the complainant’s factory at Uthukuli. The opposite party Company is situated at Nawa City, Rajasthan. On receipt of the value of the plant and also the Supervision charges for Fitting and Demonstration at the site, the plant was transported from Nawa City to Uthukuli. According to the complainant, as per the instructions of the opposite party’s Civil Engineer, on Madavappa, the foundation was laid and the roofing work also was done. On 28.12.92 a technician of the opposite party arrived at the site and found fault with the foundation construction, and then as per his direction the complainant relaid the foundation and on account of this it has suffered monetary loss to an extent of Rs. 10,000/- and then as per the direction of the opposite party’s technicians the plants were erected. Because of the delay occurred on account of the opposite party the complainants got the electricity connection only on 28.5.93. As per the terms of warrantee given by the opposite party they should demonstrate 30/80 mesh with 20 to 25 tons per shift. But the opposite party did not fulfil this condition even though they had received special charges of Rs. 55,300/- as fitting and demonstration charges. On account of this the complainants are unable to function the unit. On these grounds the complainants have prayed for a direction to the opposite party to demonstrate crushing quartz lumps per 25 metric tonnes per shift with produce size of 30/80 mesh and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,90,000/-.
3. The opposite party resisted the complaint contending that the work of laying foundation and erection of plants were done with the complainant’s men at the supervision of the opposite party’s people. The opposite party’s technicians came to the site but since the complainant could not supply the necessary materials like mason, hardware, stones, grits, sand, cement and lifting equipments etc., they were sitting idle for a long time. Even after commissioning and putting the plant for demonstrating, the complainants did not arrange for electric power with electricians and electric motors and on giving assurance by the complainants to get the power soon the team of technicians were detained for another 3 weeks and because of that the opposite party had incurred additional expense of Rs. 7,500/-. The further contention of the opposite party is that since the complainants had made use of non-genuine spare parts they cannot expect guarantee performance and estimated shift production of 30/80 mesh. In fact the complainants have to pay to the opposite party a sum of Rs. 1,05,220/-, and to avoid that payment the complainants have come to the District Forum. Therefore the complaint is liable to the dismissed.
4. The District Forum directed the opposite party to demonstrate as prayed for by the complainants within a period of 3 months from the date of the order failing which to refund a sum of Rs. 53,300/- with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from 1.3.93. It is against this order the appeal has been preferred by the opposite parties.
5. When one reads closely the averments in the complaint especially para 23 relating to cause of action, it would appear that the only case of the complainants are that the opposite parties failed to demonstrate production of quartz of the size of 30/80 mesh. However, the complainants have averred that at the instance of the Civil Engineer of the opposite party the foundation was done, but the technician of the opposite party who arrived at the site later found the work defective and cost of this reconstruction had to be incurred, and this resulted in a
