DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Wednesday the 27^th day of November 2024

CC.381/2016

Complainant

Prasheejan. P,

S/o. Late. Kumaran,

Paduvalath Veedu,

Eranhikkal. P.O,

Mokavoor, Kozhikode - 673303

Opposite Parties

1.               Anil Kumar,

S/o. Velayudhan Nair,

Kanyadath Veedu, Edakkad. P.O,

                        Kozhikode.

2.               The Proprietor,

Clins Dresses,

                        Puthiyangadi,

Kozhikode – 673021

    Suppl. 3.  Faijas Female Tailors,

                     Koyanko Bazar, S.M. Street,

                     Kozhikode.

                   (OP1 By Adv. Sri. Sanal Kumar,

        OP3 By Adv. Smt. Shini)

(The supplemental third opposite party was impleaded as per   order dated 11/12/2017 in IA No. 438/2017.

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

            This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant is a band teacher, temporarily working in Kakkodi Padinjatttumuri UP School. During the academic year 2013-14, the complainant was entrusted with the duty of forming a band troop in the school utilising the funds provided by Kakkodi Grama Panchayath. In March 2014, the complainant entrusted uniform cloth worth Rs. 8,750/- to the opposite parties for stitching 25 band uniforms for the students. A total amount ofRs. 7,000/- was also paid to the opposite parties towards stitching charges.

3. But the uniforms stitched were defective and not in accordance with the measurement taken and for that reason the same could not be worn by the students concerned.  Now the uniform is taken on rent for the programmes.  The opposite parties have not taken any positive steps to redress the grievance of the complainant in this regard. They are not ready to pay the price of the uniform cloth or refund the stitching charges.
4. In July 2014, the complainant lodged a petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Elathur, pursuant to which, the opposite parties agreed to rectify the defects before August 15, 2014. But the opposite parties did not keep their word. Even though the opposite parties were summoned the police station thrice thereafter, nothing happened.   Later on 1/01/2015, the complainant lodged a petition before the Circle Inspector of Police, Nadakkavu. On 20/08/2016 the opposite parties and the complainant appeared in the police station and the opposite parties had stated that new uniforms could not be supplied, but he was ready to entrust the stitched uniform in the school. Records are available in the police station regarding all these matters.
5. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 8,750/- being the price of the uniforms and to refund Rs. 7,000/-, being the stitching charge collected and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered including cost of the litigation.
6. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have resisted the complaint by filing written version jointly wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. They have denied the entrustment of the uniform cloth for stitching and also the collection of Rs. 7,000/- towards stitching charges. Further they have denied the settlement talk in the police station. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. He is not the office bearer of the PTA nor was he authorised by the PTA to file the complaint. The first opposite party had only introduced the third opposite party for stitching the uniforms.
7. In the light of the contentions in the written version of the first and second opposite parties, suppl. 3^rd opposite party was impleaded as per order dated 11/12/2017 in IA No. 438/2017 filed by the complainant. 
8. In addition to the above contentions, the suppl. third opposite party in his written version has stated that though the school authorities had entrusted him to stitch the uniforms, they did not take back the stitched uniforms after paying the stitching charges. No amount was received by him from the complainant as alleged. It was the PTA who had approached him for stitching the uniform. Since the stitching charges were not paid, he was put to monetary loss. He has no dealings with the complainant. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
9. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?

2) Reliefs and costs.

10. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant. No evidence was let in by the opposite parties.
11. Heard both sides.
12. Point No 1:   The grievance of the complainant is that the band uniforms stitched by the opposite parties were defective and not usable and the opposite parties neglected to redress the grievance of the complainant despite repeated requests and they were not ready to pay the price of the uniform cloth or refund the stitching charges and thereby there was deficiency of service.
13. The complainant has got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the bill dated 24/03/2014, Ext A2 is the copy of bill dated 22/05/2014, Ext A3 is the copy of the petition lodged in the Elathur police station and Ext A4 is the copy of the petition dated 01/01/2015 given to the Circle Inspector of police, Nadakkavu.
14. The case of the first and second opposite parties is one of total denial. They have stoutly denied having any dealings with the complainant except having introduced the suppl. third opposite party to the school authorities for stitching the uniform. The stand taken by the third opposite party is that he has no dealing with the complainant and no amount was received from him. However, the third opposite party has admitted that the PTA of the school had entrusted the work of stitching the band uniforms  and he had done the work, but the PTA authorities have not yet taken back the stitched uniform paying the stitching charges.
15. On a careful consideration and scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence, it appears that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.   The complainant claims to be a band teacher (temporary) of the school and he claims that he was entrusted with the duty of forming a band troop in Padinjattumuri Govt. UP School, utilising the funds provided by Kakkodi Grama Panchayath. The complaint is seen filed by the complainant in his personal capacity in the house address and the complaint is not on behalf of the school or PTA or representing the school or the PTA. No document authorising the complainant to file the complaint on behalf of the school or the PTA is forthcoming. So, as rightly contended by the opposite parties, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.
16. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the complainant had entrusted the work of stitching uniform to any of the opposite parties. The definite case of the third opposite party is that the said work was entrusted to him by the PTA and he has no dealings with the complainant herein. No document is produced by the complainant to show that he had entrusted the work to the opposite parties or made payment of the stitching charges to them. No bill/order form is produced. No receipt for the alleged payment of stitching charges is produced before this Commission. Even as per the pleadings in the complaint, the fund is provided by the local grama panchayath. It cannot be thought that the Government money will be spent without proper receipt/ voucher. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the complainant had paid Rs. 7,000/-  as stitching charges to any of the opposite parties as claimed by him.
17.  While in the box, PW1 has stated that a total amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was received by him directly from the Grama Panchayath and out of this, he had paid Rs. 15,000/- to the first opposite party. This statement of PW1 is contrary to the pleadings. The pleading is to the effect that Rs. 7,000/- was given as stitching charges to the first opposite party. There is no receipt/ voucher either for Rs. 7,000/- or Rs. 15,000/- allegedly paid to the opposite parties. There is no consistent case for the complainant.
18. Further, it may be noted that originally the pleadings in the complaint was that the work was entrusted to the first and second opposite parties and the payment was made to the first opposite party. The suppl. third opposite party was not in the picture at all and he was impleaded on the basis of the contention taken by the first and second opposite parties in the written version that they have no dealings with the complainant except for introducing the third opposite party to the school authorities for stitching the uniform. There was no consequential amendment to the pleadings or prayers in the complaint.    
19. It is also pertinent to note that as per the pleadings in the compliant it was the first opposite party against whom petition was lodged in the police station and settlement talk was made. Further it may be noted that according to the complainant, pursuant to the petitions lodged by him, there was a settlement arrived in the police station and documents are available in the police station evidencing the same. But this is stoutly denied by the opposite parties. The complainant has not taken any steps to summon or cause production of the documents pertaining to the alleged settlement, from the police station concerned.
20. The complainant is alleging deficiency of service as the stitching of the band uniforms was not proper. But it may be noted that the complainant has not produced or taken any steps to cause production of the stitched uniforms before this Commission.
21. From the above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no proof of any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and consequently the complaint must fail.   Point found accordingly.
22. Point No. 2:- In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 27^th day of November, 2024.

Date of Filing: 30.08.2016

                                      Sd/-                                                              Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

                             PRESIDENT                                                   MEMBER                                       MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Copy of the bill dated 24/03/2014.

Ext.A2 – Copy of bill dated 22/05/2014.

Ext.A3 – Copy of the petition lodged in the Elathur police station.

Ext.A4 – Copy of the petition dated 01/01/2015 given to the Circle Inspector of police, Nadakkavu. 

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  Prasheejan. P (Complainant)

                                    Sd/-                                                              Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

                             PRESIDENT                                                   MEMBER                                       MEMBER

True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                  Assistant Registrar.