KISTLER MORSE AUTOMATION LTD Vs. COROMANDAL CEMENTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the unsuccessful Opposite parties in CD 30/2004 before the District Forum, Ranga Reddy where under an order was passed directing them to return a sum of Rs.1,36,532/- with interest at 9% 5.7.2001 till realization with costs . Aggrieved by the impugned order this appeal is filed questioning the legality and propriety of it.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that on oral negotiations the opposite party company agreed to supply electronic weighing machine. The complainant had sent a quotation requesting OP 1 for supply of electronic belt weighers which was accepted on 19.8.99. Subsequently the OPs through letter dated 4.9.21999 had given the offer for supplying the equipment for Rs.1,65,000/- for taxes etc. A purchase order was issued in favour of OP 1 for the said equipment. As per the purchase order, delivery is to be made within three months so also that integrator Master weigher-1 with accuracy 0.05 % ( + or - ). Though important conditions were mentioned while supplying equipment, but the equipment was supplied on 13.4.2000 and their Service Engineer was deputed in My 2000 only after repeated reminders. It was found that the machine was not supplied as per the specifications and terms and conditions of the purchase order. During the trial run it had recorded abnormal variations upto 4 to 10% which was informed to the respondents and a meeting was conducted on 14.7.2001. Minutes were recorded. It was confirmed that the equipment needs calibration and it will be done only by a senior engineer. Fax message was sent to respondents to depute senior engineer on 29.8.2001. One Krishna Kishore was sent to undertake repairs who informed that the master weigh needs repairs which can be done at their plant. It was confirmed by the letter dated 31.8.2001 and undertaking by the respondent get it repaired. Later it Master weigher 5 was replaced. On trial run in the presence of Service Engineer even master weigher- 5 also shows verification more than from 4 to 10% and it was duly intimated. But the respondents have least bothered in getting the equipment successfully commissioned. On 30.8.2002 one Mohd. Khasim was deputed by the respondent for commissioning of the belt weigher who confirmed that load cell is not functioning which requires replacement. Minutes were recorded. Respondents neglected thereafter. So the complaint was filed for successful commissioning of the equipment or for refund of the amount. The act or omission amounts to deficiency . Hence filed the complaint for directing to rectify the equipment for refund of Rs.1,65,000 with compensation.

(3.) The Opposite parties have engaged an advocate who filed vakalat on 5.5.2004 but he had not filed any counter. So the District forum had forfeited the right of the appellants/OPs in filing the counter.