DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 24^th day of September, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC No.478/1999

1. Mrs.Yesoda Kesavan (Late),

Devi Kripa,

7/564, College Road,

Palakkad – 1.

2. Mrs.Indira Priyadarsini,

(impleaded as legal heir),

Indeevaram,

TC6/481(9),

Swagath Nagar,

Arappura Junction,

Vattiyoorkavu,

Thiruvananthapuram. - Complainants

Vs

K.Achuthankutty,

S/o.Ramachandran Nair,

Sivasakthi Saw Mills,

Unnikkat House,

Kizhakkethara, Pallavoor Post,

Palakkad. - Opposite party

(By Adv.V.B.Bhrigu)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

The case of the complainant in brief:

Complainant herein entrusted the opposite party for the supply of wooden materials such as door frames, doors, window frames and windows for the newly constructing house of her daughter. Complainant made a total payment of Rs.40,000/- in two instalments. Rs.25,000/- on 04/03/1997 and Rs.15,000/- on 17/09/1997. Opposite party did not care to supply the materials within the agreed time. Later on 18/01/1998, opposite party agreed to supply products worth Rs.16,800/-. Balance amount was agreed to be paid in cash within 6 months as per the agreement executed between the parties. Opposite party failed to honour the commitment. A registered lawyer notice was issued against the opposite party. But

opposite party did not care to reply. According to the complainant, it is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. Complainant claims a total amount of Rs.47,808/- under different heads.

2. Opposite party filed version contending the following.

According to the opposite party, opposite party has no dealing with the complainant herein. Opposite party is a timber depot owner. Complainant’s son-in-law approached opposite party with a list to purchase timber for his wooden articles. He selected the timber and the same was sawn into pieces. Price was also paid. He then required the opposite party to introduce and engage a carpenter to do the work. The opposite party made necessary arrangements and the carpenter was doing the work under the direction of the son-in-law of the complainant. Payments were made through the opposite party. When almost half of the work was completed, the son-in-law of the complainant informed to stop work for want of funds. The completed articles were taken. He requested the opposite party to take back sized pieces and pay the amount. The opposite party expressed his inability to purchase the sized timber but promised that he would try to sell it, if proper person approaches for the same size and after the sales opposite party would pay the amount to the son-in-law of the complainant. Since opposite party did not get proper customer, he requested to take back the sized pieces. But he was reluctant. Further opposite party has not executed any agreement dtd.18/01/1998 as alleged by the complainant. According to opposite party, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The evidence adduced consists of the affidavit of respective parties and Ext.A1 to A4 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite party.

4.Complaint was remanded back from the Hon’ble State Commission for fresh disposal. Even though notice was issued for the appearance of the legal heir of the complainant who was impleaded as the second respondent before the Hon’ble State Commission, she never appeared before the forum. Opposite party filed version and affidavit.

5. Issues for consideration are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2. If so, what is the relief and order?

6.Issues 1 & 2:

The definite case of the complainant is that complainant engaged the opposite party for the supply of wooden articles for the construction of her daughter’s house. Out of the total amount of Rs.40,000/- paid, the opposite party supplied only goods worth Rs.16,800/- and for the balance amount opposite party executed an agreement stating balance amount will be paid within 6 months. According to the opposite party, he has not executed such an agreement.

7. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record. Going through Ext.A3, the agreement alleged to be entered into by the complainant and opposite party, it can be seen that it doesn’t bears the signature of the opposite party. Hence it cannot be said to be executed by the opposite party even though there is an endorsement in the second page stating amount is due to the complainant. Ext.A1 and A2 evidences the fact that opposite party has received Rs.40,000/- from the complainant. But there is no evidence on record to show that only goods worth Rs.16,800/- was supplied by the opposite party. The legal heir of the complainant never appeared before the forum even though repeated notices were issued.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

9. In the result, complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.

10. Pronounced in the open court on this the 24^th day of September, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Stamped Receipt dtd.04/03/1997 for Rs.25000/-

Ext.A2 – Stamped receipt dtd.17/09/1997 for Rs.15,000/-

Ext.A3 – Agreement dtd. 18/01/98.

Ext.A4 – Copy of lawyer notice dtd.03/04/1999

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 – Letter dtd.30/07/1997

Ext.B2 – Letter dtd.27/09/1997

Ext.B3 – Letter dtd.25/10/1997

Forum’s exhibit

Nil

Costs (Not allowed)