Date of Complaint Filed :13.12.2018

Date of Reservation      :11.07.2022

Date of Order               :05.08.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

PRESENT:   TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                         : PRESIDENT

                      THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,         :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,  : MEMBER II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.31/2019

FRIDAY, THE 5^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

M/s. Hitech Labels,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

Mr.A. Thangamalai,

No.3, Bharatheeswarar Colony 5^th Street,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                                                                                                                                                ... Complainant    

..Vs..

Avery Dennision India Pvt Ltd,

Rep. by Mr. Nandakumar,

Plot No.18 & 23,

Peenya Industrial Area,

Phase-I, Yashwantpur Hobili,

Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 058.                                                                                                                                        ...  Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant           : M/s. A. Poonachandran

Counsel for the Opposite Party        : Exparte

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member – I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A.,B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to sum of Rs.2,05,526/- paid by the Complainant as advance and pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the compensation for the negligence and deficiency in service and for the mental agony along with cost of Rs.5000/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant is doing the business for his lively hood of Printing. In order to run his business he has to purchase paper rolls from the Opposite Party. He was doing the transaction with the Opposite Party for several years. On believing the Opposite Party’s word he paid a Rs.2,05,526/- as advance for supplying Gum Printing Rolls. He had given the order for 4 nos. of gum printing rolls under Product Code No.LMH9602, measuring 250 mm x 1000 meters. He also has ordered an another product of Fasson Faspet White/Permanent/ BG 40, under the product code No.AMB2350, 167 MM x 1000 Meters and 250 MM x 1000 meters, totally he has ordered 10 rolls for each product. For supplying the above mentioned products he has paid the above mentioned amount of Rs.2,05,526/- on 03.09.2018. The Opposite Party usually will supply the products immediately after receiving the advance amount. Unfortunately this time the Opposite Party has received the amount but failed to supply the goods as well as furnish the invoice in respect of the payment. The activity of the Opposite Party is purely illegal, unsustainable in law and against the natural justice. Hence he insisted to supply the goods immediately, explaining the situation that without the paper gum rolls he could not deliver the order taken by him. He also further explained that due to the activity of the Opposite Party he has to suffer heavy loss. He made several requests through e-mail and telephone but every attempt ended in vain. Meanwhile the customers those who given orders insisted for prompt delivery. But due to the act of the Opposite Party he could not deliver the order in time. The above act of the Opposite Party is purely deficiency in service and liable for damage incurred by him. He did not know what to do and served a legal notice on 15.10.2018, demanding to supply the goods within a period of 7 days. His attempt ended in vain. The Opposite Party's negligence act and deficiency in service by failure to supply the goods in time caused much loss to him. On the Ground of deficiency in service and negligent on the part of the Opposite Party, claimed for suitable damage. Hence the complaint.

3.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6  were marked.   

4.    The Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice served on them, was called absent and set exparte .

Points for Consideration

1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer to maintain the above Complaint?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the complaint and for any other relief/s?

Point No.1:-

On Careful reading of the Complaint, though the Complainant is running a business of printing in the name and style of Hitech Labels, which is a proprietary concern and the transaction of supply made with the Opposite Party being commercial, the product purchased and used for the purpose of earning of his livelihood and hence the Complainant is a Consumer and the Complaint filed by the Complainant is maintainable. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2:-

The Complainant had placed orders with Opposite Party through Mail dated 01.09.2018 as per Ex.A-3, for supply of 4 rolls of 2M matt void pet/permanent, gum printing rolls under Product Code No.LMH9602, measuring 250 mm x 1000 meters and also for supply of Fasson Faspet White/Permanent/ BG 40, under the product code No.AMB2350, 10 rolls measuring 167 MM x 1000 Meters and 10 rolls measuring 250 MM x 1000 meters and also requested to send Proforma Invoice. The Invoice provided by the Opposite Party has been marked as Ex.A-6 as found in Page No.8 and 9, wherein the details of supply to be made by the Opposite Party in respect of Fasson Faspet White/Permanent/BG40, under the product code No.AMB2350,was mentioned as 4 rolls of said product measuring 210 MM in width x 1000 meters in length, 3 rolls of said product measuring 167 MM in width x 1000 Meters in length and 1 roll of said product 159 MM in width x 1000 meters in length,for a total sum of Rs.1,00,695.30p. The payment for the said sum of Rs.1,00,695/- has been paid by the Complainant on 04.09.2018 through NEFT to the Opposite Party as per Statement of accounts dated 01.10.2018 given by Oriental Bank of Commerce, as evidenced from Ex.A-2. For the order placed by the Complainant for 4 nos. of gum printing rolls under Product Code No.LMH9602, measuring 250 mm x 1000 meters, with the Opposite Party, since the invoice was not provided the Complainant as requested under Ex.A-3, mails dated 01.09.2018 and 12.10.2018 sent to the Opposite Party. The Complainant had filed the proof of payment for a sum of Rs.1,04,831/- made by the Complainant on 03.09.2018 through NEFT to the Opposite Party as per Statement of accounts dated 01.10.2018 given by Oriental Bank of Commerce, as evidenced from Ex.A-1. Since the Opposite Party had not supplied the above products in spite of receipt of the above said payments, the Complainant was constrained to issue a Legal notice dated 15.10.2018, wherein the Opposite Party was called upon to supply the above products within 7 days from the receipt of the said notice, as evidenced from Ex.A-4. The Opposite Party in spite of receipt of the said notice, as found in Ex.A-5 had failed to supply the above said products amounting to Rs.2,05,526/-. The Complainant had marked Ex.A-6 in support of the earlier transactions he had with the Opposite Party.

On discussion made above and Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, on perusal of the Exhibits marked in support of the claim made by the Complainant, this Commission holds that the Opposite Party had negligently failed to supply the order placed by the Complainant in respect of the products mentioned above, in spite of receipt of the payments towards the above said supply, clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and caused mental agony to the Complainant. Hence, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered.

Point No.3:-

As discussed and decided in Point No.2 against the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party is liable to refund a sum of Rs.2,05,526/- towards advance amount paid by the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the negligence and deficiency in service and for the mental agony caused to the Complainant along with costs of Rs.3,000/- and the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered.

In the result this complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,05,526/- (Rupees Two Lakh Five Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Six Only) towards advance amount paid by the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service and for the mental agony caused to the Complainant along with costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only), within 8 weeks from the date of the order, failing which the Complainant is entitled to recover the above said amounts with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of realization.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 5^th of August 2022.

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

NIL

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                         MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT