Kerala

Kasaragod

C.C.NO.35/2006

Seetharama.U - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dinakara Rao - Opp.Party(s)

Shrikantha Shetty

22 May 2008

ORDER


.
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD
consumer case(CC) No. C.C.NO.35/2006

Seetharama.U
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Dinakara Rao
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Seetharama.U

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Dinakara Rao

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Shrikantha Shetty

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

D.o.F:18/3/06 D.o.O:22/5/08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD CC.35/06 Dated this, the 22nd day of May 2008 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Seetharama .U, S/o Somayya, : Complainant Proprietor, Bhagavathi Printing Press, : Manjeshwar,Kasaragod. Dinakara Rao,Proprietor, : M/s Sahara Marketing, Regd.Off.D-23 Jainidhi Township, : Dewalipura Road,Vadodara-390015, : Opposite party Gujarat. R/at Gantalkatta,Moodubidri Muncipality, No.12/8,Moodubidri,Karnataka. : ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT: In terse the complaint is as follows: 1. The complainant placed an order before the opposite party for a ROTO Print 1520 DX a printing machinery for the printing press run by the complainant for livelihood. The opposite party provided a quotation for the supply of machinery for Rs.167500/-(Rupees one lakh sixty seven thousand five hundred only) dtd.15/11/04. Eventhough the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- on 24/11/04, Rs.45000/- vide DD dtd.29/11/04 and Rs.1,00,000/- by cash on 23/2/05, thus totaling Rs.165000/- in response to the aforesaid quotation , the opposite party did not supply the machinery. All the efforts to get the machinery or the money back was in vain. Hence the complaint claiming the refund of Rs.165,000/- with interest @16% from 23/2/05 with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of Rs.3500/-. 2. Notice to opposite party was issued in the address where the opposite party carries on his business. The same was returned with endorsement ‘left’. Hence the complainant submitted the residential address of the opposite party. Notice issued in the said address was returned with endorsement insufficient address’. Thereafter upon the request of the complainant publication of notice was allowed in a local kannada daily by name ‘Hosadigantha’ which is having circulation in the vicinity of the residential address of the opposite party. Even after publication of notice the opposite party failed to appear and defend the case. Hence on 6/5/08 the opposite party was set exparte. 3. The complainant filed an affidavit in support of his claim. Exts.A1 to A8 marked. Claim proved. It appears from Ext.A1, the quotation issued by opposite party that the price of the ROTO Print 1520 DX offset printing machine with CST, Training charges and transportation amounts to Rs.167500/-. Exts.A2 to A4 proves that the complainant had paid Rs.165000/- to opposite party. Ext.A5 is a copy of complaint lodged by the complainant before the Manjeshwar police against the opposite party. Ext.A6 is the copy of the lawyer notice and Exts.A7&A8 is the undelivered lawyer notice with acknowledgment. 4. Heard the counsel for the complainant. From the facts and circumstances and exhibits presented before us it appears that the complainant is subjected to grave unfair trade practice by the opposite party. After receiving the amount the opposite party neither supplied the printer machine nor refund the amount. The complainant departed with Rs.1,65,000/- with no benefit. 5. We feel that, this is a fit case in which punitive cost has to be imposed upon the opposite party. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.165000/-only without interest. Opposite party further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) by way of punitive cost to the complainant for the loss hardships and mental agony suffered by him. We are not awarding any interest on the principal amount of Rs.165000/- since both interest and compensation not permissible as the interest is awardable by way of compensation. In the circumstances we do not award any further cost. Time for compliance of this order is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which on application by the complainant appropriate proceedings will be initiated under Sec.25 &27 of the C.P.Act. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts: A1-Quotation issued by opposite party A2-to A4- Cash receipts A5-Copy of complaint lodged by the complainant before Manjeshwar Police against the OP A6-Copy of the lawyer notice A7&A8-Undelievered lawyer notice and acknowledgment. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ Senior Superintendent




......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi