Kerala

Idukki

CC/27/2022

Emmanuval - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepu Sudhakaran - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 7.2.2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  25^th  day of   July,  2023

Present :

                   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                  PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.27/2022

     Between

Complainant                                       :        Emmanuel, S/o. Sebastian,

                                                                   Pallath House,

                                                                   Muthalakkodam P.O.,

                                                                   Thodupuzha – 685 605.

(By Advs: Cejo J. Thychery)

        And

Opposite Party                                    :        Deepu Sudhakaran,

                                                                   Galaxy Power Solutions,

                                                                   1057A4, Richmond Tower,

                                                                   Pala Road, Thodupuzha – 685 584.

 

O R D E R

 

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

This complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Facts of the case are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

1.   Complainant is engaged in fish farming business  at Thodupuzha.  Opposite party is running a shop named Galaxy Power Solutions at Thodupuzha.  On 2.3.2021, complainant has approached opposite party for purchasing an inverter (6 KVA) and exide battery (6 Nos.) for the purpose of providing aeration in his fish farm.  The total cost of inverter and battery was Rs.1,45,000/-, i.e., Rs.94,000/- for battery and Rs.51,000/- for the inverter respectively, vide two separate invoices. After agreeing upon the price, complainant paid advance amount of Rs.51,000/- on 2.3.2021.  Opposite party had promised that the products would be delivered and installed on 4.3.2021.  But, he didn’t come and install the said items until 9.3.2021.  When   complainant enquired about this, opposite party informed him that contrary to the price mentioned in the invoices issued by them, the total cost of the products would be  amount of Rs.1,67,000/-.  But complainant was not willing to pay such an exorbitant price demanded by opposite party.  Opposite party was not ready either to install the products or return the money paid to him as advance.  After requesting to return the money several times,  opposite party has issued  a cheque  for  Rs.48,200/-  only after                                                                                                                      (cont….2)

- 2  -

negotiation.  But the said cheque was dishonoured at the time of presentation.  Complainant obtained another quotation from Inverter World, Punithura, Kochi, for Rs.1,48,800/-  on 11.3.2021.  As a result of unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party, complainant was unable to purchase the inverter and battery mentioned in the quotation dated 11.3.2021.  Thereafter, on 15.3.2021, due to power failure in the fish farm aeration process was stopped for several hours, 4000 numbers of Gift Tilapia fish weighing 150 gms each had died.  As a result, complainant suffered loss of approximately Rs.1,32,000/-.  This is happened due to the act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from opposite party.  Hence opposite party is liable to pay Rs.1,32,000/- to complainant for damages occurred by the act of them.  Also, he is liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence, the following reliefs are prayed.

(a)  Opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.1,32,000/- to complainant for the damages occurred due to the death of 4000 fish. 

(b)  Opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony.

(c)  Also, opposite party may be directed to pay the entire cost of this complaint.

 

          After admitting complaint, from the Commission, notice was sent to opposite party.  But, it was unserved due to the refusal of accepting by opposite party.  Hence opposite party was called absent and set exparte against him.  So, this case was posted for exparte evidence.  Complainant has filed proof affidavit and documents.  He was examined as PW1.  These documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P4 series 8 in numbers.  Thereafter it was taken for orders.  Now the point which arise for consideration are :

a)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?

b)  If so, what reliefs the complainant is entitled for ?

 

Points are considered together :

 

          We have perused complaint, proof affidavit and marked documents.  On the examination of complainant, he has deposed that he is doing the business for fish farm with license from Fisheries Department for his livelihood by means of self-employment and no other workers are there in the fish farm.  On the perusal of documents, we have found that complainant has received the invoices dated 2.3.2021 for Rs.51,000/- and Rs.94,002/- from opposite party.  These invoices were marked as Exts.P1 and P2.  As per these Exts.P1 and P2, it is seen that opposite party has declared these invoice shows the actual price of the goods described in it.  But it doesn’t show that complainant has paid these amounts to opposite party.  Complainant alleges that after agreeing on the price as per the invoices issued from opposite party, he gave an advance amount of Rs.51,000/- on 2.3.2021.  But there is no document produced regarding the payment made by complainant to opposite party.  Moreover, complainant states that opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.48,200/- for return the money which they have received, but, this cheque was dishonoured at the time of presentation.  But, there is no evidence                                                                                                                (cont….3)

• 3  -

adduced to prove that complainant has paid any amount for purchasing the alleged products from opposite party.   Furthermore, it is not proved that opposite party demanded more amount than mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2 invoices.  Complainant could not prove that he has paid or promised any consideration for purchasing the alleged products from opposite party.  There is no consideration made by complainant to opposite party under Section 2(7)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  Complainant couldn’t prove the consumer relationship between opposite party.  Hence, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party is not proved. 

 

In the result, complaint is dismissed without costs.  

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the  25^th  day of July, 2023

 

                                                                                                                 Sd/-

           SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                                Sd/-

   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                    Sd/-

          SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1        -  Immanel.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Exts.P1 & P2   - Invoices dated 2.3.2021.

Ext.P3    -   Quotation dated 11.3.2021 issued by Inverter World.

Ext.P4 series  -  Photographs – 8 Nos.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

                                                                                       Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

                                                                           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR