COMPLAINT FILED: 30-01-2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 29-08-2009<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 29TH AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.733/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Ms.AmritaW/oParam Hans Marwaha,R/o.241, 4th main ,Near Domlur Club, Domlur,Bangalore – 560 027.Advocate – Sri.Geetha MenonV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 Sai Designer Building Materials Pvt. Ltd,No.1025, “Sri Masthiyamma Prasanna” 100Ft Road,Indiranagar HAL II Stage,Bangalore.By its Managing Director.Managing DirectorSai Designer Building Materials PVt. Ltd.,No.1025, “Sri Masthiyamma Prasanna” 100Ft Road,Indiranagar HAL II Stage,Bangalore.Advocate – Sri.D.C.Prakash<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant availed the service of the OP in providing the building materials. OP raised the invoices between May’ 2008 and July’ 2008 in respect of the items for which complainant has placed the orders. When OP delivered the said materials there was a shortage delivery of 2 items and in one of the package which was sent by OP Srz mixer was not found which is worth of Rs.20,393/. The repeated request and demands made by the complainant to OP to supply the said mixing mixer went in futile. Subsequently there to also complainant placed some orders to OP hoping that OP will keep up its promise. But the result was one and the same. OP collected the cost of the materials Rs.1,997/- twice. The toilet supply did not contain the other necessary parts like bush etc. complainant did cause legal notice to OP to supply all the materials for which it has collected the cost there was no proper response. She felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence, she is advised to file this complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant took delivery of the goods as per invoice after checking the conditions of the goods. If any shortage was there complainant would not have taken the delivery. Complainant purchased the specified material from them. The other allegations of the complainant that OP collected the cost twice and there was shortage in supply are baseless. The whole of the complaint is devoid of merits. Neither there is any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. It is the case of the complainant that she have availed services of the OP for providing building and other materials and placed same orders and OP raised the invoices in between May’2008 till July’ 2008. It is further alleged by the complainant that OP did not deliver the two items listed in the said invoice and one of the package sent by the OP was not containing Srz basin mixer worth of Rs.20,393/-. Further it is alleged that OP collected Rs.1,997-50 twice for the same item. Hence she felt unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 8. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that as per the order placed by the complainant they raised an invoice and supplied all the materials. Their liability seizes once they deliver the material from their showroom or shop. The purchaser like complainant made the pre-delivery inspection of the goods. Complainant acknowledged the receipt of the goods intact and in good condition as could be seen from the invoice. The contents of the said invoice and her signature on that is not denied by the complainant. When that is so, complainant is estopped from the containing that there is a shortage in delivery of two items and the mixer was not sent etc. <br /> <br /> 9. It is further contended by the OP that the complainant being satisfied with the service rendered by the OP, made fresh purchases directly by herself without getting the quotation or invoice from the OP. She purchased the materials vide bill No.1373 on 03-07-2008 made payment and subsequently there too she again purchased certain items from the OP. If she has suspected the unfair trade practice or cheating by the OP, she would not have repeatedly purchased the goods from the OP. This circumstance clearly goes to show that the allegations of the complainant appears to be baseless. <br /> <br /> 10. In the another bill No.1433 dated 12-07-2008 issued by the OP where in complainant made an endorsement in her own hand-writing with regard to the commitment and satisfaction of the service rendered and the good quality materials supplied by the OP. Hence, the defence set out by the OP appears to be reasonable and trust worthy. On the other hand the allegations made by the complainant appears to be baseless. We are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations against the OP. Hence, she is not entitled for the relief claimed. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 29th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />