Research › Browse › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 224 (BOM)

Engineers International and ors. v. D. V. Vasudeva Rao

1997-05-19

C.L.CHAUDHRY, S.P.BAGLA, S.S.CHADHA, V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI

body1997
JUDGMENT - S.P. BAGLA, MEMBER :---The Appeal No. 805/94 is against the order of the State Commission dated 25th of April, 1994. The appeal has been filed by D.V. Vasudeva Rao and the respondents are M/s. Engineers International, Madras and others 2.Briefly the facts of this case are that the appellant, who is a diploma holder in Automobile Engineering set up a small scale unit under the name and style of M/s. Jyoti Enterprises, Hyderabad under the self-employment scheme. His project was assisted by the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Musheerabad. He procured the following machinery which was supplied by the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. at the prices indicated : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. No.ParticularsQty.Sale ValueD.C. No. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01.N.S.B. Lathe 6 feet 2 H.P.129,739.00425 to Motor and Accessories427 02.Samson 1 M.T. 1" H.D. Radial114,380.00 Drilling Machine with 1 H.P. Motor and Accessories 03.Hercules brand 300 amps.1 7,796.00 Dt. 27-9-1986 welding transformer 04.KIWI 0.5 H.P. Double ended1 1,862.00 Bench Cylinder. ----------------------------- Total53,715.00 ----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This machinery was supplied to him through Engineers International. After the setting up of the workshop he found that two items namely the lathe 6 2H.P. Motor and Accessories and Radial Drilling Machine with 1 H.P. Motor and Accessories were defective and burnt out within three months. These could not be even repaired and ultimately, according to the appellant, he had to close his business suffering huge losses as neither the Engineers International nor the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. or the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Musheerabad gave him any help. He, therefore, first filed a complaint before this Commission and on our advice as regards the valuation, he filed it before the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The State Commission decided on the following issues on the basis of pleadings of both the parties : (1) Whether there is privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Parties ? (2) Whether the machinery found to be defective should be replaced or cost of machinery with interest be refunded ? (3) Whether the complainant was entitled to any compensation ? The State Commission came to the conclusion that the lathe and radial drilling machine were indeed defective, and therefore, directed the Engineers International who are respondent before us to pay Rs. (3) Whether the complainant was entitled to any compensation ? The State Commission came to the conclusion that the lathe and radial drilling machine were indeed defective, and therefore, directed the Engineers International who are respondent before us to pay Rs. 44,119.00, the original cost of these machines, paid by the appellant back to him alongwith interest @ 15% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 6-7-1990 and take back the dismantled parts of the machines. The respondents were also directed to pay Rs. 5,000.00 towards compensation. 3.It is against this order that Shri D.V. Vasudevarao has filed the appeal before us. His main contention is that the award given by the State Commission is totally inadequate in relation to the reliefs claimed and the losses sustained by him. He has claimed the following reliefs before the State Commission :- (a) Directions to the respondents to take back the defective machines and refund the amount. (b) To pay a sum of Rs. 2,08,165.00 towards the maintainance expenses incurred by him during the period the workshop did not function because of defective machinery. (c) To pay business loss at the rate of Rs. 30,000.00 per annum and direct the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Madras and Hyderabad not to recover instalments of the loan till the consumer dispute is settled. It has been argued before us that but for the defective machines the appellant would have earned atleast Rs. 30,000.00 a year by executing job orders which he had received. Moreover, since he had to maintain his workshop during the period from 1-3-1984 to 18-6-1990 without getting any work therein because of defective machines he had to incur an expenses of Rs. 2,08,165.00. The award of Rs. 44,119.00, the cost of defective machines, alongwith interest @ 15% from the date of complaint and a compensation of Rs. 5,000.00 is not anywhere near the loss he had suffered both on accounts of expenses and non-execution of job orders. 4.Although the appellant has produced a statement of amounts raised/expenses incurred for the establishment of his unit from 1-3-1984 to 18-6-1990 we do not find any proof regarding its veracity nor there is any convincing evidence showing that he had job orders which could not be executed because of the defective machines. 4.Although the appellant has produced a statement of amounts raised/expenses incurred for the establishment of his unit from 1-3-1984 to 18-6-1990 we do not find any proof regarding its veracity nor there is any convincing evidence showing that he had job orders which could not be executed because of the defective machines. In fact, it is on record that during the crucial period of the appellant could not run his workshop because of financial difficulties and ill-health. This is not denied that the appellant had been ill after the installation of his workshop and had been getting treatment at Vellore for which he has shown an expenditure of Rs. 24,000.00 in the year 1987. 5.We have carefully considered the facts of this case and the averments made by the appellant. We are of the considered view that the order of the State Commission directing the respondent to pay not only the price of defective machines but also 15% interest from the date of complaint alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,000.00 is just and appropriate. We see no reason to interfere with this order. Hence, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The facts and other related points being the same this order disposes of Appeal No. 665/94 also. Appeal dismissed.