w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Right Application Engineering Works v/s M/s. Concast Ferro INC Ltd.

    FA 456 of 2013 against CC 160 of 2012, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam

    Decided On, 26 February 2014

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: M/s. K.A. Narasimham, Advocate. For the Respondent: M/s. G. Allabhakshu, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Oral Order: (Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)

1) This appeal is directed against the orders of the Dist. Forum, Srikakulam in CC No. 160/2012 whereby the Dist. Forum while allowing the said CC by its order dt. 19.2.2013 directed the Opposite Party to replace the damaged engine head with another new engine head within two months and also to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The Dist. Forum further fixed the advocate’s fee at Rs. 1,000/-. The same is assailed in this appeal by the appellant/Opposite Party.

2) The brief facts that led to filing of the present appeal are as under:

The complainant submits that a work order was placed on 5.6.2012 with the appellant/opposite party to carry out engine head repair, engine assembly and service etc., for their Pay Loader Model No. 430Z-1 by providing necessary spare parts as suggested by the opposite party costing around Rs. 17,000/-. The complainant alleges that as the opposite party deputed an unqualified and unskilled service engineer, he could not rectify the problem and the engine head was damaged due to surface cracks and internal cracks nearby valve seats. The service engineer of opposite party did not conduct the water pressure test before assembling the engine which caused damage to the engine. The complainant though requested the opposite party to arrange another head and service engine they did not do so. On account of negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party the complainant incurred heavy loss. The correspondence and the legal notice got issued by the complainant did not yield any result. Thus the complainant is constrained to approach the Dist. Forum for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs. 45,000/- towards the cost of engine together with compensation and costs.

3) The appellant/opposite party opposed the complaint stating that in May, 2012 the complainant approached the opposite party with a complaint of cracks in the engine head with their service engineer. On verification, the opposite party issued a list of spare parts required for smooth functioning of the engine. As the new engine head costs around Rs. 43,650/- the complainant purchased the same in second hand market and they are also not interested to replace the old valves for the reason that they were replaced about 1 months ago at Srikakulam. As such the opposite party used the same old valves while assembling the engine. The opposite party submits that as and when the complaints are made they extended their service by replacing the gas cut etc., on 2.7.2012 and 30.7.2012. The complainant approached the

Dist. Forum with a malafide intention to make unlawful gain. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on their part. The opposite party submits that they are willing to render service free of cost at their site and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4) The Dist. Forum at Srikakulam after giving opportunity to the opposite party for filing their written version, and accepting the evidence on behalf of both parties marked Exs. A1 to A5 on behalf of complainant and Exs. B1 & B2 on behalf of opposite party came to the conclusion that the appellant/opposite party did not depute a qualified and skilled service engineer which resulted in damage to the engine and the same amounts to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, and accordingly allowed the complaint as stated supra. The said order is challenged by the opposite party in the present appeal.

5) The only grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party is that the engine head which is not in dispute is actually bought in second hand market for which the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 45,000/- and even if it is presumed that there is deficiency of service on the part of appellant/opposite party the Dist. Forum should not have directed the appellant/opposite party to replace the said engine head with that of a new one. The learned counsel has further drawn our attention to the prayer made by the complainant/respondent in his complaint. According to him, the complainant never asked for replacement of the engine head and his prayer is restricted to payment of the amount which he parted with. In those circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the said order requires re-consideration.

6) Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submitted that the Dist. Forum is justified in allowing the said complaint and directing the appellant/opposite party to replace the said engine head with a new engine head.

7) Heard.

8) We are in agreement with the said submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party. From a perusal of the complaint, it is clear that the complainant never asked for replacement of the engine head. His prayer reads as under:

a) Order the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 45,000/- towards engine cost.

b) Order the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 45,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation.

c) Order the opposite party to pay the costs of the petition together with advocate fee of Rs. 2,000/-.

d) Any other relief or reliefs which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

When the prayer itself is only to pay back the said amount of Rs. 45,000/- towards engine cost, in our considered view, the Dist. Forum ought not to have directed the appellant to replace the said defective engine part with that of a new engine head. It is also apparent on the face of record that the said engine head was bought in second hand market, and in such circumstances, the Dist. Forum ought not to have directed the appellan

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t to replace the same with a new engine head. Accordingly this appeal is allowed with following directions: The appellant/opposite party is hereby directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 45,000/-towards engine cost with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint till the date of realization, and so far as the other amounts i.e., compensation etc., are concerned they stand as they are. As and when the said amounts are paid by the appellant/opposite party the complainant/respondent is hereby directed to return the said part to the appellant/opposite party. 9) With the said modifications, this appeal is disposed of. No costs.
O R