Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/98/2017

Koonal Enterprises - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.K.Industrial Machines - Opp.Party(s)

Smt.D.K.Sheela

25 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON:24/11/2017

DISPOSED      ON:06/06/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

 

C.C.NO: 98/2017

 

DATED: 19^th JUNE 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B., PGD., CLP  

 

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Koonal Enterprises, Manufacturers of Paper Cups and Non-Woven Bags, Plot No.3A, Khata No.42/3A, KIADS Industrial Area, Chitradurga, by its Partners. 1. Smt. Koonal Hanumakka, W/o Late Thimma Reddy, Age: 64 Years, Partner, “Koonal Nilaya”, Near Bedarakannappa Temple, C.K.Pura, Chitradurga.   2. Smt. Mamatha. D.V, W/o K.R. Sudharshana Reddy, Age: 40 Years, Partner, R/o “Prakruthi Nilaya”, B.L. Gowda Layout, Near Basappa Hospital, Kelagote, Chitradurga.   (Reptd., By Sri.S. Anjaneyalu, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	K.K. Industrial Machines Pvt. Ltd., No.79/13, I Floor, Mogappair Road, Mannurpet, Chennai-6000050, by its Managing Director K. Krishna Kumar.   (ex-parte)

 

 

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to repay Rs.19,03,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a from January 2017 till date with costs and such other reliefs.    

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainants is that, their firm is a registered partnership firm bearing Reg.No.CDG-F94-2016-17 under the name and style as Koonal Enterprises with an object of manufactures of paper cups, paper roles, paper plates, non-woven bags.  The OP is dealing with the business of sale and supply of Industrial Machines working under the name and style as K.K. Industrial Machines Pvt. Ltd.,. One K. Krishna Kumar is the Managing Director of the OP firm.  OP has published its business through its website with all exaggerations and false assurances.  The complainants inspired by the advertisement made by the OP through its website contacted the Managing Director of OP expressed their intention to purchase the machines to their firm for manufacture of above said items.  Thereafter, the Managing Director of the OP visited the complainants’ firm and agreed to supply the necessary machines and taken order from the complainants and given quotation No.KKIM/QTN/ABN/140/20/B-17 dated 02.01.2017 to the complainants.  Complainants agreed to purchase the machines.  The complainants have paid Rs.75,000/- to the OP by cash as per receipt dated 16.01.2017, Rs.5,00,000/- through RTGS as per receipt dated 31.01.2017, Rs.5,00,00/- through RTGS as per receipt dated 06.02.2017 and finally Rs.15,00,000/- through RTGS from KSFC, Chitradurga as per receipt dated 15.02.2017 in all the Managing Director of OP has received Rs.25,75,000/- from the complainants for the above said transaction.  But, the Managing Director of OP has deliberately without any bonafide reasons failed to supply the machines as agreed and OP has supplied only one machine out of the several machines.  The complainants repeatedly pressed the OP for supply of the remaining machines as ordered by them but, due to the act of the OP, the complainant could not start their firm which hinders to repay the heavy loan borrowed by them in KSFC.  Further, the complainants’ firm has received loan repayment demand notice from the KSFC, which put the complainants to mental torture and financial distress.  On demand made by the complainants, the Managing Director of the OPs has expressed his inability to fulfil the needs of the complainants and further agreed to repay the remaining amount due from him to the complainants and issued three postdated cheques bearing Nos.02161966, 02161967 and 02161968 drawn on Union Bank of India, TSK Nagar, Chennai for Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.6,50,000/- and Rs.6,53,000/- dated 22.05.2017, 30.05.2017 and 08.06.2017 respectively.  The complainant has presented the two cheques bearing Nos.02161966 and 02161967 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.6,50,000/- respectively on 30.05.2017 through Allahabad Bank, Chitradurga for encashment but, the said two cheques were returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient” on 30.05.2017 and 31.05.2017 respectively.  Thereafter, the complainant informed about this to the Managing Director but, he has given evasive answers.  Therefore, the complainants have issued legal notice dated 05.06.2017 to the Managing Director, who requested to present the said cheques once again along with another cheque after fifteen days by that time, he will arrange the amount.  As such, the complainants have presented all the above three cheques for encashment through Allahabad Bank, Chitradurga on 27.06.2017 but, all the above three cheques are returned with an endorsement that “funds insufficient” on 28.08.2017, the same was informed to the Managing Director, who again and again postponing the repayment with malafide intention to defeat and defraud the complainants with his evasive tactics.  As such the complainants have issued second legal notice on 10.07.2017 to the Managing Director, the same was served on 17.07.2017, but the OP has not made any arrangements to repay the amount or to reply to the notice.  Therefore, the same is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP which caused loss, injustice, hardship and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.              

3.      Inspite of service of notice, OP did not appear before this Forum, hence placed ex-parte.

4.      The complainant No.2 herself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-9 were got marked and closed their side. 

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

1. Whether the complainants prove that, OPs have committed deficiency of service for non-supplying of the machines to the complainants or to return the amount and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

              (2)   What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:- In Negative.

                    Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:-  It is the case of the complainants that, they intend to purchase machines from the K.K. Industrial Machines Pvt. Ltd., i.e., the OP.  The Managing Director of the OP Sri. K. Krishna Kumar is agreed to supply the machines as ordered by the complainants.  As per the agreement, the complainants have send the amount to Managing Director of the OP by way of cash for a sum of Rs.75,000/- as per receipt dated 16.01.2017 and further the complainants have send Rs.5,00,000/- through RTGS as per receipt dated 31.01.2017, Rs.5,00,000/- as per receipt dated 06.02.2017 and finally Rs.15,00,000/- through RTGS from KSFC, Chitradurga as per receipt dated 15.02.2017 in total, the complainants firm has paid Rs.25,75,000/- to the OP’s firm.  After receiving the amount, the OP’s firm has sent only one machine to the complainants.  Further the complainants have demanded to supply the remaining machine but, the OP failed to supply the same.  Finally, the complainant has approached the OP’s Managing Director to supply the machines as ordered by them, who has given evasive answer and he has not supplied any machines to the complainant.  Lastly, the OP’s Managing Director has issued three post dated cheques bearing Nos. Nos.02161966, 02161967 and 02161968 drawn on Union Bank of India, TSK Nagar, Chennai for Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.6,50,000/- and Rs.6,53,000/- dated 22.05.2017, 30.05.2017 and 08.06.2017 respectively.  After receiving the said cheques, the complainants have presented through Allahabad Bank, Chitradurga for encashment on 27.06.2017 but, the said cheques were returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient” on 30.05.2017.  As such, the complainants have requested the Managing Director of the OPs to pay the amount or to supply the machines.  The Managing Director of the OP firm requested to present the said cheques after  fifteen days and as such, the complainants have presented all the above three cheques for encashment through Allahabad Bank, Chitradurga on 27.06.2017 but, all the above three cheques are returned with an endorsement that “funds insufficient” on 28.08.2017.  Again the complainants have issued legal notice to the Managing Director of OP on 10.07.2017 as per Ex.A-3 but, OP has not given any reply or supplied the machines to the complainants.  The complainants have got every right to recover the amount as paid by them to the Managing Director of the OP from the competent Court. As per Ex.A-3, this Forum come to the conclusion, the complainants’ firm has already filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I Act against the Managing Director of the OP.

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainants, which clearly goes to show that, the complainants have ordered to supply the machines from the OP firm.  As per the records, the complainants’ firm has paid an amount of Rs.19,03,000/- to the OP on different dates.  The OP failed to supply the machines as ordered by the complainants firm.  Finally, the complainants approached the OP and requested to supply the machines or to refund the amount as agreed.  Accordingly, the OP has issued three postdated cheques to the complainants, those cheques were returned with funds insufficient.  After receiving the endorsement from the concerned Bank by the complainants, issued legal notice to the Managing Director of the OP on 10.07.2017 informing that, they will going to file a complaint under Section 138 of N.I Act.  As per the notice issued by the complainants, it clearly goes to show that, the complainants have already filed a cheque bounce case against the OP.  When the case is pending before the concerned Court to recover the amount, the complainants have no right to file a complaint before this Forum claiming compensation.  Hence, the complaint filed by the complainants is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as Negative to the complainant.    

  10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 19/06/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainants:

 

PW-1:  Complainant No.2 by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

 

-Nil-

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	True copies of three cheques
02	Ex-A-2:-	True copy of endorsement
03	Ex-A-3:-	Legal notice dated 10.07.2017
04	Ex.A-4:	True copies of postal receipt and acknowledgement
05	Ex.A-5:-	Receipts dated 06.02.2017, 15.02.2017, 16.01.2017 and 31.01.2017
06	Ex-A-6:-	True copy of receipt for registration certificate firm
07	Ex-A-7:-	True copy of registration certificate firm
08	Ex-A-8:-	True copy of agreement of partnership
09	Ex.A-9:	Form VAT 7
10	Ex.A-10:-	CST commodities – Annexure
11	Ex.A-11:-	Dealer’s Partner – Annexure
12	Ex.A-12:-	Lease deed

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**