NAGAR PALIKA RISHKASH Vs. JEEVAN ENGINEERING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case reveal that the Complainant purchased two Garbage Remover vehicles from the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.3,25,600/-. The said vehicles were delivered to the Complainant with guarantee for 12 months against any manufacturing defect, raw material and had workmanship from the date of the supply of the above mentioned vehicles. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,00,600/- to the Opposite Party by cheque dated 30.3.1991, Annexure to the Complaint. In paragraph 9 and 10 of the complaint to the Complainant has enumerated the defects in two vehicles and stated that the same were not upto the mark, are of substandard quality and are not in a satisfactory working, condition as they cannot lift the garbage creating severe health problem. It is further stated that for this reason the vehicles could not be put to use and are lying idle. The Nagar Palika is facing severe problem in cleaning the city and lifting the waste material from the streets. In paragraph 9 of the Complaint, it has been stated that the Complainant made on23rd April 1991 to Opposite Party calling upon them to remove the defects. The reply to this letter is dated 16.5.1991 which states that they undertook to rectify the defects. The Opposite party in spite of the said letter did not remove the defect. On the allegations made in the complaint, it is entitled to refund Rs.3,00,600/- with interest and compensation. The Complainant also claims Rs.15,000/- spent in incurring expenses, lodging etc. in meeting the officials of the opposite party at Delhi and elsewhere and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- spent in litigation for recovery of the amount. The Opposite Party in spite of service of notice has not put in appearance.

(2.) We accordingly proceed with the case against Opposite Party ex-parte.

(3.) From a perusal of the affidavit in support of the Complaint it appears that in paragraph 9 and 10 of the affidavit, the Complainant has enumerated defects in the vehicle. It has also been averred on affidavit that in spite of request the Opposite Parties have not cared to remove the defects pointed out in the vehicles. After having examined the facts of the case which are supported by affidavit we hold that the Opposite Party is guilty of supplying defective vehicles to the Complainant.