P.Suresh Babu S/o Sambiah Hindu age 28 Prop Sri Supraja Paradise filed a consumer case on 14 Jul 2015 against 1) Mr Jyothi Poddar The director.Environ Energy Crop,India Pvt Ltd. in the Nellore Consumer Court. The case no is CC/42/2013 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Nov 2015.
Date of Filing :20-02-2013
Date of Disposal:14-07-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE
Tuesday, this the 14th day of July, 2015
PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member
Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.
P. Suresh Babu,
S/o.Sambaiah, Hindu, Age 28 years,
Proprietor:Sri Supraja Paradise,
Opposite to M.D.O.office,
Kovur, Nellore District. ..… Complainant
Vs.
1. | Mr. Jyothi Poddar, The Director, Environ Energy Corporation India Private Limited, 16/5, Block-A, New Alipore, Kolkatta-700053 and also head office at 60A, DH Road, Kolkatta-700063, India.
|
2. | Environ Energy Corporation India Private Limited, Represented by it’s Managing Director, No.199, Ground Floor, 42nd cross, Jaya Nagar, 8th Block, Bangalore-560082. ..…Opposite parties
|
.
This complaint coming on 02-07-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri V. Chandrasekhar Reddy, advocate for the complainant and opposite party No.1 called absent and case against the opposite party No.2 is dismissed as non-pressed and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)
The complainant filed this complaint under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act for a direction to the respondents / opposite parties to refund amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest thereon at 24% p.a. from 01-09-2010 till the date of payment and payment of compensation Rs.20,000/- by way of damages for causing mental agony and sufferings and for cost of the complaint.
2. The material averments of the complaint in brief are that respondents 1 and 2 represented that they are manufacturing Solar Water Heating System and established their branch office at Nellore canvassed about the same. The complainant agreed to purchase the said systems through one Sri P. Madhu, authorized representative of the company. The complainant paid an advance of Rs.50,000/- under order form No.8671, dated 01-09-2010 for model No.LPD.1500 X two pieces under receipt No.90218, dated 01-09-2010. The opposite parties promised to supply the said system within short period. Surprisingly, the opposite parties vacated their branch office at Nellore. The said P. Madhu, whom the complainant approached for supply of the said system or refund the advance amount paid by him, made several representations to the respondents 1 and 2 and also sent several e-mails to them, requesting to supply the material or to refund the amount for which there was no response. The opposite parties have withheld an amount of advance paid by the complainant and utilized the same for their personal usage. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to refund the said amount together with interest at 24% p.a. They did not complied with the demand made by the complainant in the legal notice dated 05-05-2012 through which complainant called upon the opposite parties to return the advance with interest. There is deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.
3. The opposite parties were served with notices in the complaint. When opposite party No.1 called on 28-06-2013 eventhough notice serviced to opposite party No.1, he was absent and no representation on its behalf till the case reserved for orders. The complainant has not pressed the complaint against opposite party No.2 and hence the complaint is dismissed against opposite party No.2. 1st Opposite Party did not choose to contest the complaint for the reasons better known to him.
4. On behalf of the complainant, proof affidavit of the complainant is filed and documents Exs.A1 to A3 marked. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant, perused material papers on record.
5. The point for determination would be for consideration is :
so and whether the complainant is entitled for the claim made in the complaint?”
2) To what result?
6. POINT NO.1: The complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant booked an order with the opposite parties through one Madhu, an authorized representative of the opposite parties for supply of solar water heating system under order form No.8671, dated 01-09-2010 and paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of cash and issued a receipt dated 01-09-2010, it is Ex.A1. Thus the opposite parties have received the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant and they retained the said amount.
7. The opposite parties have not supplied the product ordered by the complainant. Efforts made by the complainant for obtaining supply of the product through said Madhu, did not yield any result. Having no other alternative, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 05-05-2012, which is Ex.A2 to the opposite parties calling upon them to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. and also calling upon them to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/-. The opposite parties have not chosen to comply with the demand contended in the said notice and the complainant was compelled to file this complaint for relief stated in the complaint. The material on record very much knows about the truth and correctness of the transaction. The opposite parties have failed to keep up their part of their obligation and to supply the system for which order was placed by the complainant. The opposite party instead, retained an amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant as early as on 01-09-2010. The opposite parties have unlawfully retained an amount of Rs.50,000/- of the complainant and there is any amount of deficiency in the service on the part of the respondent.
8. Generally, a common man used to purchase goods as a customer from a shop by expecting that the purpose for which the products purchased will serve the fulfillments of their desires. If they fail to purchase the products due to fraudulent behavior of the sellers in any event, the very purpose of his desire will be defeated and the consumer will be put to great hardship. In the instant case, the complainant advanced an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards purchase of solar water heating system to the opposite party No.1 but the opposite party No.1 did not supply the said water heating system and without intimation, they vacated the premises of the branch office at Nellore, which is nothing but cheating and mischeif played by them. Such type of attitude on the part of opposite party No.1 should not be encouraged. If the said attitude is continued to be allowed definitely consumer will loose confidence on purchase of goods and it also affects the goodwill of business at large.
9. We find no banafidies on the part of the opposite party No.1, as it has not placed any material contrary to the evidence placed by the complainant for which the complainant cannot be penalized. Long silence on the part of opposite party No.1 evident enough to prove the guilt on its part.
10. The complainant is seeking for a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid as advance from 01-09-2010 to the date of payment.
11. Now the point is to be considered “whether the complainant is entitled for payment of compensation, if so, how much amount, he is entitled apart from payment of refund of advance amount?”
The complainant claimed for a direction to the opposite parties for payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and suffering said to have been caused by the opposite parties due to the deficiency in service committed by them. In order to obtain a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/-, the complainant has to establish the mental agony and suffering said to have been caused to him. It is not the version of the complainant that he suffered mental agony or his illhealth was affected due to the act of the opposite parties. Merely because the 1st opposite party did not choose to contest the claim of the complainant, the complainant would not be automatically entitled to whatever amount claimed in the complaint. The complainant would not be entitled for payment of exharbitant compensation of Rs.20,000/- as claimed. An amount of Rs.10,000/- appears to be the reasonable amount of compensation, the complainant would be entitled. Therefore, the complainant shall be entitled for payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Besides the said amount, the complainant would be entitled to costs of Rs.3,000/-. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 is proved. Thus the point No.1is answered accordingly.
12. POINT No.2: In the result, an award is passed directing the 1st opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e., on 20-02-2013 till the date of payment and also payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) besides the costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only). One month time is granted for payment of the amounts awarded, failing which the complainant is at liberty to proceed according to law under Consumer Protection Act. The case against opposite party No.2 is dismissed as not pressed.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 14th day of July, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined for the complainant
P.W.1 - | 11-03-2015 | Sri P. Suresh Babu, S/o.Sambaiah, Nellore. |
Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties
-Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - | 01-09-2010 | Photocopy of receipt No.90218 for Rs.50,000/- in favour of complainant issued by opposite party No.2 . |
Ex.A2 - | 05-05-2012 | Legal notice from complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties.
|
Ex.A3 - | 05-05-2012 | Two registered post receipts addressed to the opposite parties. |
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
-Nil-
Id/-
PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)
Copies to:
1. | Sri V. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Advocate, D.No.23-2-11, 1st Cross Road (C.A.M. Compound), Ramesh Reddy Nagar, S.P.S.R.Nellore-524 003.
|
2. | Mr. Jyothi Poddar, The Director, Environ Energy Corporation India Private Limited, 16/5, Block-A, New Alipore, Kolkatta-700053 and also head office at 60A, DH Road, Kolkatta-700063, India |
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.