BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 30^TH November 2010

PRESENT

          SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT               

   SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

   SRI. ARUN KUMAR.K         :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.245/2010

(Admitted on 9.9.2010)

B.Chandrashekara Acharya,

So Monappa Acharya,

Aged about 29 years,

Rat.Mookambika Jewellary Works,

Jalsoor, Sullia Tq. D.K.                                …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri.Sanjay D.)

          VERSUS

M.Chandrashekar,

M.Chandrashekar Furniture Works,

Guruprasad Building,

Bypass Circle, Darbe,

Puttur, D.K.                                               ….. OPPOSITE PARTY

(Opposite Party: Exparte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant submits that, he is a gold-smith by profession and wanted to open a Jewellary shop at Jalsoor, Sullia for self  employment and to eakout livelihood.  Hence the Complainant approached Syndicate Bank Jalsoor under the Government Scheme Priminister Rozgar Yojane in the month of October 2007 for purchase of Safe Locker to the Jewellary shop.  For that the Complainant has submitted the quotation of the Opposite Party dated 5.10.2007 for Rs.38,300/- to the Syndicate Bank for supply of locker.  The Syndicate Bank has sanctioned the loan of Rs.38,300/- to the Complainant.  Thereafter the Bank has paid the amount of Rs.38,300/- to the Opposite Party as per demand draft No.115828/603 dated 23.11.2007.  The Opposite Party has encashed the Demand Draft for the supply of the Safe Locker.  It is submitted that at the time of giving the quotation the Opposite Party has promised to deliver the Locker within 3 months of the payment.

When the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party did not supply the safe locker within 3 months of the encashment of demand draft.  Thereafter the Complainant approached the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party inturn stated that they have not received certain parts of the safe locker and sought some time.  Thereafter, the Complainant once again went to the Opposite Party in the month of March and April 2008 to get the safe locker.  But the Opposite Party gave lame excuses and not supplied the safe locker.  Thereafter the same has been reported to the Syndicate Bank, Jalsoor.  The Bank addressed a letter to the Opposite Party to supply the safe locker to the Complainant.  But the Opposite Party failed to do the same.  Subsequently, the Complainant issued the legal notice dated 4.1.2010 to the Opposite Party to supply the safe locker, but the same has not been complied by the Opposite Party.  Hence, the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to deliver Safe Locker to the Complainant or to refund  Rs.38,300/- to the Complainant with 12% interest from 23.11.2007 till payment and also pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party despite of serving notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date.  Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party. 

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

4.       In support of the complaint, the Complainant – Sri. B.Chandrashekara Acharya, (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and Ex C1 to C4 are produced as listed in the annexure. The Opposite Party placed exparte.

We have heard and perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record by the Complainant and answer the points are as follows:

                   Point No.(i) : Affirmative

Point No.(ii) to (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

5.      POINT NO. (i):

The Complainant sworn to the fact that, he is a gold-smith by profession, in order to open a Jewellary shop by way of self employment approached the Syndicate Bank and applied a loan for purchase of safe locker to the jewellary shop under the Government Scheme Priminister Rozgar Yojane in month of October 2007.  The Opposite Party issed a quotation dated 5.10.2007 for Rs.38,300/- to the Syndicate bank for supply of locker.  The Syndicate Bank has sanctioned the loan of Rs.38,300/- and the same has been paid to the Opposite Party as per demand draft dated 23.11.2007.  The Opposite Party has encashed the Demand Draft for supply of the Safe Locker, but till this date not delivered the locker thereby the Complainant has lost his money and put to inconvenience and loss. 

In support of the above statement, the Complainant produced Ex.C1 to C4.  On scrutiny of the documents produced by the Complainant, wherein the Ex.C1 is the quotation issued by the Opposite Party dated 5.10.2007 for Rs.38,300/- to the Complainant.    The Ex.C2 is the letter issued by the Syndicate Bank wherein, it is proved that, the Complainant availed a loan under the Government scheme to install a Jewellary Shop at Jalsoor.  As per the quotation the Syndicate Bank issued Rs.38,300/- being the cost of the one safe locker.  The Ex.C3 is the notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party dated 4.1.2010 clearly reveals that, the Complainant paid Rs.38,300/- by way of Demand Draft to the Opposite Party.  Despite of taking so much of amount the Opposite Party not supplied the Jewellary Safe Locker as per the quotation to the Complainant. 

The above statement by way of affidavit and the documents produced before this FORA by the Complainant are not controverted/contradicted by the Opposite Party.  The entire evidence of affidavit is not rebutted by the Opposite Party in this case.  Hence, which requires no further proof. 

We have observed that, the Complainant believing the Opposite Party availed a bank loan with the Syndicate Bank for purchase of Jewellary Safe Locker and thereby paid Rs.38,300/- to the Complainant on 23.11.2007, despite of receiving so much of amount from the Complainant, the Opposite Party not supplied the safe locker nor refunded the amount till this date, amounts to deficiency in service.

In view of the afore mentioned reasons, we hold that, the Opposite Party without supplying the safe locker as well as the money refunded by him till this date committed deficiency of service.  Therefore, we direct the Opposite Party to deliver a safe locker to the Complainant immediately as mentioned in the quotation and also pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience and harassment.  Or in the alternative, the Opposite Party directed to refund Rs.38,300/- along with interest at 12% per annum from 23.11.2007 i.e. from the date of Demand Draft till the date of payment.  Further Rs.1,000/- (Rupee One thousand only) awarded as cost of the litigation expenses.  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                                  

ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is hereby directed to deliver a safe locker to the Complainant immediately as mentioned in the quotation and also pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation. 

Or

The Opposite Party directed to refund Rs.38,300/- (Rupees Thirty eight thousand three hundred only) along with interest at 12% per annum from 23.11.2007 i.e. from the date of demand draft till the date of payment.

Further Rs.1,000/- (Rupee One thousand only) awarded as cost of the litigation expenses.  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of November 2010.)

    PRESIDENT                 MEMBER                   MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Sri B.Chandrashekara Acharya – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 – 5.10.2007: Copy of the quotation given by Opposite Party.

Ex C2 – 13.5.2009: Copy of the letter addressed by the Syndicate Bank to the Opposite Party.

Ex C3 – 4.1.2010: O/c of the registered notice.

Ex C4 – 5.1.2010: Postal Acknowledgement.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

-Nil-

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:   

-Nil-

Dated:30.11.2010                                      PRESIDENT