O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. The petitioner's case is as follows: The first opposite party is a co-operative society and second opposite party is an agent of the first opposite party bank. The second opposite party is doing the business of purchasing rubber sheet and crumb rubber from the farmers. The petitioner had given rubber sheet and crumb rubber to first opposite party from 1995 on wards. According to the petitioner the business between the petitioner and opposite party is a Future's Trade. So the opposite party is liable to pay the entire cost of the goods given by him as per the prevailing rate of the rubber on the date of petitioners demand. The petitioner had demanded the price of the goods which were given by the petitioner to the second -2- opposite party but the opposite party has not given the price of goods given by him. Later after mediations the second opposite party on 21..12..2004 and 27..12..2004 had given Rs. 22,000/- and 32,000/- respectively. The petitioner for getting the balance price of the goods filed a complaint to the Assistant Registrar of Co-Op. Societies, Kanjirappally. The Assistant Registrar after mediation settled the dispute. As per the settlement the second opposite party has to give the petitioner an amount of Rs. 45,000/-in 3 instalments of Rs. 15,000/- each on 16..8..2005, 15..10..2005 and 15..12..2005. The first opposite party thus gave the first 2 instalments . But he has not given the 3rd instalment as promised. According to the petitioner he had given 3405 kg. of rubber sheet and 543 - 400 kg. of crumbed rubber. The petitioner states that he is entitled to get Rs. 68/- per kg. for the rubber sheet and Rs. 40 /- per kg. for the crumbed rubber, ie. the prevailing market rate of the goods, at the time of demand by the petitioner. So the petitioner states that the act of the opposite party in not giving the cost of the goods as agreed is a clear deficiency of service so, he claims an amount of Rs. 141276/- as price of the goods supplied by him along with 18% interest to the said amount the petitioner also claimes Rs. 5000/- as compensation. The first opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable and there is a specificbar for entertaining the petition before this Forum. They admitted that second opposite party is their agent deputed for purchase of the agriculture product of the farmers the product thus collected by the second opposite party weregiven to the office of the first opposite party. According to the first opposite party they had given cash for the entire goods given by the second opposite party and no credit purchase is allowed to its agent. According to the first opposite party all the amounts -3- which are due to the second oposite party were given on 24..11..98. There is no cause of action arised against first opposite party. So according to them petition is to be dismissed with their costs. The second opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable the petition is barred by limitation. The second opposite party contented that the petitioner has filed a complaint before the joint registrar of Co-Op. Societies, Kottayam as file No. H.M/1210/05 and said case is pending. So the petition is not maintainable before this Forum. The second opposite party contented that no business, as stated by the petitioner in his petition, had taken place. The second opposite party had not done any Futures Trade. According to the second opposite party the price for 1278 kg.. of rubber was given on 15..10..99. On 21..12..2004 Rs, 22,000/- was given and on 27..12..2004 Rs. 32,000/- was given. Later the petitioner filed a petition before the Assistant Registrar of Co.Op. Society (General) as petition No. P 655/95. A compromise agreement was entered between the petitioner and second opposite party. The entire dispute between the petitioner and second opposite party were settled on 27..6..2005. According to the second opposite party the petitioner is only entitled for last instalment of Rs. 15,000/-, as per the terms of the compromise. Conceling all these facts the petitioner filed a petition before the Police Sub Inspector, Manimala and Dy.S.P., Kanjirappally, all these petitions of the petitioner were dismissed. Subsequently he filed petition before the Registrar of Co.Op. Society and which is now pending. The second opposite party is ready to give last instalment of Rs. 15,000/- but the petitioner is not willing to accept same as agreed. The second opposite party contented that the demand of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 141276/- is not sustainable. He is only entitled for Rs.15,000/- and -4- petitioner is ready to give the said amount to the petitioner. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Reliefs and costs. Evidence in this case consists affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 series documents the opposite party evidence consists of Ext. B1 to B8 and Court Exhibits . C1 to C1(h). The opposite party raised a contentions with regard to the maintainability of the petition. So, that has to be determined. The main contention with regard to the maintainability is that since the matter has been already decided by the Asst. Registrar the Forum is estopped from reconsidering the dispute. As per order in I.A 514/06 the Forum call for the records with regard to the dispute between the parties. The Asst. Registrar (General) Kanjirapally send the entire files regarding the matter in dispute vide file No. P-655/05, is produced and marked as Ext. C1 series. The settlement entered by both parties is marked as Ext. C1 From Ext. C1 it can be seen that the dispute between the parties were settled for an amount of Rs. 45,000/- and as per Ext. C1 the opposite party have to give the said amount in 3 equal instalments. According to the petitioner he had paid 2 instalment as agreed and he is ready to pay the 3rd instalment but the opposite party was willfully not accepting the said instalment. The 2nd opposite party produced a receipt showing acceptance of Rs. 15,000/- by the petitioner on 16..8..2005 the said document is marked as Ext. B5. Ext. B6 is the receipt showing acceptance of Rs. 15,000/- by the petitioner on 15..10..2005. Ext. B5 and Ext. B6 shows that the petitioner -5- without any protest had accepted the instalment amount as per settlement in Ext. C1 . As per the settlement the balance amount had to be paid on 15..12..2005. According to 2nd opposite party he went to the office of the Asst. Registrar on 15..12..2005 for giving the balance amount but the petitioner refused to accept the same so, the 2nd opposite party issued a letter to the Asst. Registrar (General) on 15..12..2005. Photocopy of the said letter is produced and marked as Ext. B7. It is very interesting to note that on 28..12..2005 the petitioner filed this petition before the Forum. So, the 2nd opposite party's statement that he went to the office of Assistant Registrar (General) for giving the balance amount is much probable. Second opposite party produced a copy of notice issued by the Joint Registrar, Co.Operative Society to the Assistant Registrar, Co.Operative Society, Kanjirappally the said document is marked as Ext. B8. From Ext. B8 it can be seen that petitioner filed petition to Joint Registrar Co.Operative Society, Kottayam even after filing of the petition before this Forum. So, we are of the opinion that the Forum is estopped from reconsidering the matter in which once the authority constituted under the co-operative society Act has decided and the act of the petitioner by filing petition after petition before different authority's is only an abuse of process of law. We are also of the opinion that this petition is a frivolous and vexatious one. So, the opposite parties are entitled to get cost under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. Point No. 1 is find accordingly. Point No. II In view of the findings in point No. 1. Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is ordered to pay Rs. 500/- to each opposite parties under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act for instituting frivolous and vexation complaints against the opposite -6- parties. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of the order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
......................Bindhu M Thomas ......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
