CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of October, 2015

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                      Date  of filing : 31/10/2014

CC /166/2014

Shanavas.T.S,

S/o.Saithumuhammed,

Shereena Manzil, Sai Junction,                                            :        Complainant

Olavakkode, Palakkad

(By Adv.Unni Thomas)      

                                                          Vs

Bharathi, Owner,

Bharathi and Company,

Vegetable Shop, Stall No-4,

Melamuri, Palakkad.                                                          :        Opposite party

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The case of the  complainant is that on 26/10/2014 he purchased vegetables from opposite party.  He alleges that opposite party has collected excess amount for the vegetable when compared to the vegetable shops at Olavakkode.  He also alleges that the opposite party is collecting excess price from all the consumers for the sale of vegetables.  The complainant had also alleged that the opposite party has not exhibited the price list of the vegetables in front of the shop.  He had also produced the list of the vegetables purchased from the opposite party’s shop and also another list purchased from another vegetable shop at Olavakkode for comparison.
The complainant had approached before this Forum seeking an order directing the opposite party either to  pay   compensation of Rs.15,000/-  for the sufferings he had on 26/10/2014 for purchasing vegetables from opposite party along with Rs.2,000/- as cost towards litigation.  

The notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  Opposite party denied all the allegation contained in the complaint.  The complainant had filed this complaint without the true knowledge and misunderstanding about the quality of the vegetables.  The opposite party submits that he is conducting vegetable business for more than 50 years and is very much devoted to his profession.  He used to sell  only high quality vegetables, with a view that the consumers who purchase those vegetables had to consume it for a long time.   The vegetables are having various qualities and the price depends upon their quality.  The consumers who approaches his shop always demands for standard quality vegetables.   The complainant has filed this complaint with ulterior motives only to harass the opposite party.  There is no scope for comparison between the vegetables purchased from the opposite party’s shop with another vegetables purchased from any other shop.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.  The above complaint is false and vexatious and has to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.

Complainant and opposite party filed chief affidavit along with documents.  Ext.A1 and A2  was marked from the side of the complainant.  Ext.B1 and B2  was marked from the side of the opposite party.  Opposite party filed IA application seeking permission to cross examine complainant but the complainant was not present for cross examination nor filed any counter.  Hence evidence was closed and the matter was heard

The following issues are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite

Parties?

2. If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

 ISSUES 1 & 2

          We have perused the complaint as well as documents produced before the Forum.  The allegation in the complaint is that the opposite party has collected excess amount for selling vegetables.  The contention of the opposite party was that the price depends upon the quality of the products.  The complainant has alleged that the opposite party  has not exhibited the price of the commodity in front of his shop.  It is the look out of the Civil Supplies Dept. to take action against those complaints.  Opposite party had filed application to cross examine the complainant so  as to prove his contentions.  But the complainant failed to appear before the Forum for cross examination.  Hence an adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant.  The price of the commodity according to their quality  can be determined only by the appropriate authorities only then the deficiency of service can be determined by this Forum.  There is no evidence to prove that the opposite party is collecting excess amount from other consumers as alleged in the complaint.  Hence we are not in a position to attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant has miserably failed to prove the allegation narrated in the complaint.   Hence the complaint  is  dismissed  without costs.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th  day of October, 2015.

                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                   Smt. Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                                        Smt. Suma. K.P

                                                                       Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1- Original Bill of AAR, PGT  dtd 26/10/2014

Ext.A2- Original Bill of Bharathy & Co.  dtd 26/10/2014

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1- Blank format showing vegetable price list (Original)

Ext.B2- Blank Format showing bill (Original)

Witness marked on the side of complainant

Nil     

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost Allowed

No  cost allowed.