Date of filing: 20.01.2014.
Date of disposal: 24.09.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Wednesday, the 24th day of September, 2014
C.C.No.26 of 2014
Between:
Consumer Guidance Society Representing: Tummala Vamsi Krishna, S/o Subba Rao, Aged about 45 years, Near Jammi Chettu Centre, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada.
…..Complainant.
And
Authorized Signatory, M/s Metro Cash & Carry India Pvt., Ltd., Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada.
.. … Opposite party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 15.9.2014, in the presence of Consumer Guidance Society for complainant; Sri M.V. Rama Rao, advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party directing it to refund Rs.84,000/- paid by complainant towards supply of rice, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, for costs and other reliefs.
The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
1. The complainant is the proprietor of R.R. Quality Rice and doing business under small scale basis for his livelihood. The complainant is a card holder of opposite party and that he paid Rs.84,000/- to one Mr.Darapurapu Venkata Gopi Krishna who is working as floor manager in the establishment of opposite party for supply of Basmathi rice on 15.4.2012. The said floor manager issued an acknowledgment receipt in the name of M/s.Lakshmi Srinivasa Agencies in stead of complainant’s company or his name. The same was noticed by complainant when he approached the opposite party for eliciting the inordinate delay in supplying rice. At that juncture the opposite party’s authorized signatory informed that the floor manager who received amount allegedly acted in fraud and asked the complainant to wait until disposal of criminal case. But later also the opposite party has neither supplied the rice nor returned the amount. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 21-11-2013 to the opposite party. The opposite party received the same, but kept quiet. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite party. The opposite party filed version denying the material allegations of the complaint and contended that the complainant is not a consumer and that he never approached the opposite party and paid amount of Rs.84,000/- and that the complainant filed the receipt issued to one Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agencies and that the receipt is not in the name of R.R Quality Rice and that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A3 on his behalf. The authorized signatory of opposite party filed affidavit, but no documents were marked.
4. Heard complainant and perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party and the record.
5. Now the points that stood for consideration are
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in not supplying the rice to the complainant?
- If so, to what relief.
Point No.1
6. The undisputed facts in this case are that the complainant is running a rice shop under the name and style of M/s.R.R Quality Rice and that the opposite party is the supplier of various varieties of rice. The grievance of the complainant is that he paid Rs.84,000/- for supply of basmati rice to the floor manager of opposite party who issued Ex.A1 cash receipt and thereafter the opposite party failed to supply the same in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice under Ex.A2. In this regard, the contention of opposite party as seen from the version is that the Ex.A1 was issued in the name of Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agencies, but not in the name of M/s.R.R.Quality Rice and as such the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. Admittedly perusal of Ex.A1 discloses the name of Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agencies, but not M/s.R.R.Quality Rice. As per the complainant, he is the proprietor of M/s.R.R Quality Rice. But, the complainant filed Ex.A3 copy of private complaint filed by opposite party against their employees before II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. In the said complaint, the opposite party shown the name of floor manager to whom the complainant allegedly paid the amount as A1. Further perusal of said complainant discloses in page No.3 at para No.4 that “as per the letters given by the customers, the accused have received the money as follows
1. R.R Quality Rice claims an amount of Rs.84,000/-“
As such it is clear that A1 had allegedly taken Rs.84,000/- from the complainant apart from others. The said fact is supporting the contention of complainant that he paid Rs.84,000/- to floor manager of opposite party who is A1 in the private complainant filed by opposite party and disproving the contention of opposite party that they have not received any amount. Further the opposite party is not denying the filing of private complainant. As such, it is clear that the complainant has paid the amount to floor manager of opposite party for supply of rice. Though the employees of opposite party had played fraud and misappropriated the amount, the opposite party being employer is liable to make the loss good to its customers. But the opposite party even after receipt of notice has not supplied the rice and not returned the amount.
7. As far as the contention of opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer as he is reselling the goods, the contention of the complainant is that he is doing business under small scale basis for his livelihood. Admittedly the complainant is doing rice business and he is purchasing huge quantity of rice from the companies like opposite party and selling the same to the needy people and thereby eking out his livelihood. In general, the people had no occasion to purchase huge quantity of rice and store it and they would purchase small quantity as and when required. Hence, in these circumstances, the selling of rice to needy people cannot be termed as resale of goods. As such we cannot accept the contention of opposite party. But considering the circumstances of the case and keeping the fact in view that the employees of opposite party played fraud on it, we are not inclined to grant compensation and interest.
Point No.2
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.84,000/- (Rupees eighty four thousand only) to the complainant besides costs of Rs.1,000/-. Time for compliance is one month. The other claims of complainant shall stands dismissed.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 24th day of September, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 15.04.2013 Copy of cash receipt issued by OP.
Ex.A2 21.11.2013 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A3 Photocopy of complaint filed on behalf of complainant before III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
On behalf of the opposite party:
PRESIDENT (FAC).
