Date of filing : 20-01-2011
Date of order : 20 -06-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 14/2011
Dated this, the 20th day of June 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Haris, S/o. A.N.Samsudeen, } Complainant
Proprietor,
Tri Lead Associates, Anebagilu,
Kasaragod.
(Adv. K. Shrikanta Shetty, Kasaragod)
E.Ajith Narayanan, } Opposite party
Managing Director,
Digits Innovators,
Opp. Perumba Bus Stop, N.H. Payyanur,
Kannur.Dt. Kerala
(Adv.Bindu,P. Hodurg)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The nutshell of the case of the complainant is that the complainant Proprietor, Tri Lead Associates,Anabagilu, Kasaragod who is a distributor of cosmetic items under self employment scheme ordered for 10 Handy printing machines and one Biometric Instrument from opposite party and paid `61,000/-. The opposite party is the Managing Director of Digits Innovators, Payyanur. But the opposite party willfully not supplied the promised goods inspite of receipt of price. Complainant caused to sent a lawyer notice dated 4-1-2011 which was received by the opposite party on 10-01-2011. But there was no reply or compliance of the demand as per the notice. Hence the complaint.
2. Notice issued to opposite party and Adv.Bindu from Hosdurg filed vakalath and version. According to opposite party the transaction narrated in the complaint is a business transaction and will not lie under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Opposite party denied all the allegations levelled against him including order for supply of 10 numbers of Handy printing machines and Bio metric instrument by the complainant for his Kasaragod shop. In the version opposite party states that he is the Managing Director of Digits Innovators dealing with software development supply and upgradation only and not a dealer or manufacturer of any goods like Handy printing machines and the opposite party never accepted any order or any amount from anybody for the supply of Hand printing machines. The opposite party further states that he had supplied one inventory system automation software to the complainant for which he received some amount from the complainant. The complainant and opposite party executed an agreement regarding the supply and maintenance including upgradation as per that agreement. That the complainant approached the opposite party during the last week of December 2010 and requested some additional service which are not correct according to the agreement executed between them. As per the agreement the complainant is liable to pay the balance amount to the opposite party on completion of the final upgradation of the software supplied by him.
3. Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Exts A1 to A9 marked. Ext.A1 is the lawyer notice sent by complainant to opposite party. Ext.A2 is the acknowledgement. Ext.A3 is the pay slip of ICICI Bank for `14,000/- to opposite party. Ext.A4 is the pay slip of ICICI Bank for `47,000/- to opposite party. Ext.A5 is the advance receipt for `5,000/- issued by opposite party for complete inventory system software. Ext.A6 is the Technical proposal for supply installation and commissioning of Automation software made by opposite party to complainant and Ext.A7 cash/credit receipt issued by opposite party to complainant. Ext.A8 is the cash/credit receipt issued by opposite party to complainant.
4. The points arises for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. If so, what is the order as to relief and cost?
5. Point No.1 & 2 can be discussed together. A close perusal of Exts A1 to A9 make clear that a cash receipt of advance made by complainant to opposite party for complete inventory system software was `5000/-. In Exts A1 to A9 documents, no where it is mentioned that the order made by complainant to opposite party was for Handy Printing Machine. No document was produced before the Forum to prove his case. Moreover, Ext.A5 advance receipt for complete inventory system software is clear evidence for opposite party’s case. In his version opposite party stated that he had supplied one innovation system automation software to the complainant for which he received some amount also. After filing version opposite party has not adduced any evidence. The documents filed by the complainant, are not supportive of his case. The documents produced by the complainant Ext.A5 shows the order made by the complainant was for complete inventory system software and not for any Handy Printing machine. In the version opposite party states that he is dealing with software development, supply and upgradation.
In the light of the above discussion it is clear that the complaint is of no merits. Hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 04-01-2011 copy of lawyer notice.
A2.Postal acknowledgement card.
A3 & A4 Photocopy of Pay-in-slip. ICICI Bank.
A5. 13-01-09 photocopy of Cash/credit receipt for an amount of 5000/-
A6.22-11-09 photocopy of technical proposal
A7.10-05-10 Photocopy of Voucher Tri-Lead Associates.
A8.10-05-10 Photocopy of Cash/credit receipt.
A9. Photocopy of Pay-in-slip. ICICI.Bank.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
