J.M. Malik, Presiding Member
1. The complainant, Mr.Zakir Hussain Abdul Gaffar Deshmukh, runs business in the name and style of M/s. Priya Rubber Industries. He is a manufacturer of slippers (Hawai slippers). He used to order rubber sheets and rubber straps from the OPs, 1, 2 & 3, namely, Mazhuvanoor Rubber Products, Willison A. Mazhuvanoor (Died), through LRs, and Mary Abraham, respectively, since the year 2002.
2. On 06.03.2006, the OPs approached the complainant and asked him to purchase some machineries for manufacturing slippers so that the complainant may advance his business. The OPs supplied Quotation regarding price of the machineries. The complainant approached the Central Bank of India and it sanctioned a loan in the sum of Rs.10,35,000/- and issued five DDs in favour of the OPs. The complainant paid another sum of Rs.3,45,000/- in cash and desired to purchase the machineries worth Rs.13,80,000/-. The grievance of the complainant is that the said machineries were not delivered to him. Those machineries were not supplied. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for delivery of machineries or refund of price of machineries, Rs.13,80,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and costs.
3. The OPs contended that they are suppliers of rubber sheets only. They supplied rubber sheets worth Rs.9,50,000/-. They had received an amount of Rs.10,35,000/- and thereafter, they returned Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant by demand draft. It was alleged that the complainant had forged and fabricated some documents as well as Quotation dated 06.03.2006.
4. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to refund Rs. 10,35,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 02.05.2006 and also directed them to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs, to the complainant.
5. Aggrieved by the that order, the OPs filed First Appeal before the State Commission which was accepted while dismissing the complaint.
6. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case. He contended that the petitioner is a ‘consumer’. The OPs are defaulters and there is deficiency of service.
7. The present case revolves around the Quotation dated 06.03.2006 for machineries. The complainant has filed a case against the OPs which is registered as Crime No.256 at Karim Nagar Police Station against the complainant, under Sections 406,417, 468, 471, 473 & 511 of IPC. Secondly, the OPs transact the business of manufacturing rubber sheets and there is no evidence to show that they are suppliers of machineries. The registration certificate of the Industrial Unit run by OPs has also been produced on the record. The State Bank of India also issued certificate certifying that the OPs Unit is engaged in manufacturing rubber sheets and stripes only.
8. It must be borne in mind that according to the complainant, he received the Quotation from OPs on supply of machineries. Although, the said Quotation bore sales tax number, registration number and contact number, yet, the said Quotation is in printed form. The complainant did not mention the name of any person as to who, in fact, had supplied the Quotation in person, to the complainant. The fact from where the said Quotation found way to the hands of the complainant is an act which is shrouded in mystery.
9. The State Commission was pleased to observe, as under :-
'While observing quotation, we find that alleged quotation is dated 06.03.2006, there is rubber stamp with signature of the appellants. The said stamp has marked on the left side of the page i.e., also not in proper manner. The alleged order sheet dated 07.07,2006 is also not properly marked. It seems that both these documents are fabricated and not genuine. On perusal of said documents, it is seen that bill is prepared on 07.07.2006 while as per contention of complainant 5 DDs for purchase of machinery were issued on 02.05.2006. It seems that before placing order DDs were issued by the bank and were forwarded by complainant to the appellants. This is not believable. It is also seen that Central Bank of India issued letter to the appellant asking them to supply slipper manufacturing machineries to the complainant. In our view, this is no established practice and procedure, we failed to understand why the Central Bank of India took interest in the matter of complainant while granting loan. Action on the part of Central Bank of India is uncalled for and unwarranted. Appellants produced delivery receipt of the rubber
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
sheets supplied in consideration of Rs.9,05,000/-. Said rubber sheets were received by the complainant. By letter dated 11.06.2006, complainant admitted the delivery of rubber sheets. It is also seen from the record that appellants refunded remaining amount to the complainant as it was more than the price of the goods supplied to the complainant'. 10. We find that the petitioner has no bone to pluck with the respondents/ OPs. The case is without merit and, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.