IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of June, 2011
Filed on 31.07.2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.170/2010
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Manju, W/o Rajesh 1. The Manager, Raw Material Depot
Kattungal Chirayil Kerala Sidco, Alappuzha
Alisserry Ward, Alappuzha
2. The General Manager, Sidco R.M. Division, Kadavanthra, Cochin
Eranakulam
(By Adv. Satheesh & Cheriyan – for
opposite parties 1 and 2)
3. The Managing Director
Kerala State Mineral Development
Corporation Ltd., Nirmalayam
TC No. 28/1188, Sreekanteswaram
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 023
O R D E R
SRI. K .ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Mrs. Manju has filed this complaint through her brother before the Forum on 31.07.2010 against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service. The allegations of the complainant are as follows:- She had contacted the Manager of the first opposite party and enquired about the supply of sand collected from the Dam at Malampuzha, in order to construct the residential building of his sister at Punnapra. At the time, the Manager of the first opposite party has assured that through Sidco, they had arranged to supply the required quality of sand to the customer and he had showed the sample of the sand to him. He had booked for the supply of sand having 13 cubic meter and remitted the full price of the sand, expenses for the loading charges and the charges for Lorry traveling and total amount comes to Rs.26,459/- remitted by way of DD obtained from the SBI., Alappzuha in favour of the General Manager, Sidco, Eranakulam and entrusted the DD with the first opposite party on 8.6.2010 and the first opposite party had issued receipt to him. After 14 days, as instructed from the opposite party, she had arranged labour on 22.6.2010 to unloading the sand from the Lorry. At the time of unloading, it was noticed that the sand has full of mud and small bricks with black colour and the Lorry workers were informed that the said sand was collected from Chulliyar Dam and not from Malampuzha Dam. The workers had collected a sum of Rs.1800/- from her. For recovering the said sand from the site, she had spent a sum of Rs.1500/- also. Immediately she had contacted the first opposite party along with the sample of the said sand. They had informed that they will arrange to get good sand from their Olavakode department. As such she had contact the Manager of the first opposite party at Palghat on 25.6.2010. But she has not obtained any relief, since the sand in their custody was the sand collected from the Chulliyar Dam which was no use. Since she has the assurance by opposite parties to get the sand from the Malampuzha Dam, she returned from Palghat. In that she had spent a sum of Rs.1500/-. But, she had not obtained any positive steps from the opposite parties. She had sustained a lot of inconvenience and unnecessary expenses toward that matter and that there was deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance before this Forum and filed detailed version. 3rd opposite party was absent. Considering the absence of the 3rd opposite party, they were set exparte by this Forum.
3. In the version of the first and second opposite parties, it is stated that the complainant had purchased 13 Cubic Meter sand through their office from Kerala State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. after approving the sample of the sand kept in the office of the first opposite party as per the Govt. order dt. 3.5.2010. At the time of contact of the complainant, they had informed her that the sand will be supplied by the said firm and will be supplied from Chulliyar or from Malampuzha Dam site and the quantity and quality of the sand will be as is available in the site and no complaints shall be entertained from any one regarding the quality or quantity. It is stated that the complainant had made the order for the sand only after considering the above matter. Complainant had remitted the amount only after convincing the sample kept in their office. As such, they had supplied the sand to the site of the complainant on 23.6.2010 itself. So there is no deficiency in their service and that the complainant had no right to question the same. It is further stated that they had not directed the complainant to contact any other office, regarding the matter and requested to dismiss the complaint as devoid or any merit.
4. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issued for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
3) Compensation and costs.
5. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of her case and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 to A4 – marked – examined the Power of Attorney Holders and he has been cross examined by the first opposite party. Ext.A1 is the original Power of Attorney deed executed by the complainant authorizing Sri. Sunil Kumar to conduct the case before the Forum. Ext.A2 is the Original Receipt No.2862 dt. 8.6.2010 issued by the first opposite party, after accepting the amount of Rs.26,459/- by way of DD., towards the advance amount of sand. Ext.A3 is the copy of complaint dt. 23.6.2010 to the Manager of the first opposite party at Palghat, regarding the quality of the sand and Ext.A4 is the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant vide dt. 9.7.2010 before the first opposite party, regarding he quality of sand supplied to her.
6. First and second opposite parties had filed counter proof affidavit in support of their case and produced documents in evidence – Ext.B1 is the copy of the G.O. dt. 3.5.2010 regarding the supply of sand from the Dam site of Malampuzha and Chulliyar through first opposite party. Ext.B2 is the copy of the Receipt dt. 10.5.2010 regarding the supply of sand from Malampuzha and Chulliyar Dam site, through the first opposite party. Ext. B3 is the Circular dt. 11.5.2010 regarding the supply of sand. Ext.B4 is the copy of the application dt. 8.6.2010 of the complainant for the sand of 13 cubic meter. Ext.B4(a) is the copy of the identity card of the complainant. Ext.B5 is the copy of the letter dt. 8.6.2010 issued to the complainant by the first opposite party in connection with the details of the sand to be supplied by the opposite parties. Ext.B6 is the copy of the letter dt. 30.8.2010 issued by the first opposite party to the 2nd opposite party regarding the allegations raised by the complainant in connection with the supply of sand to her. Ext.B7 is the copy of the letter dt. 28.8.2010 issued by the Manager, Sidco, RM depot, Palghat to the 2nd opposite party regarding the issues involved in the supply of sand to the complainant. Ext.B8 is the copy of the Reply letter dt. 3.9.2010 filed by the 2nd opposite party before the Forum. Ext.B9 is the copy of the cash memorandum issued by the office of the Palghat Division of the first opposite party. Ext.B10 is the copy of the Report dt. 6.5.2010 issued by the Principal, NSS College of Engineering, Palghat, regarding the report of the quality of the sand.
7. Considering the contentions of the parties, a Commissioner was appointed by the firm and his report is marked as Ext.C1 and examined him and he has been cross examined by the complainant.
8. We have carefully examined the whole matters involved in this case and perused the documents produced by the complainant and opposite parties and also verified the depositions of the parties and the commission report (C1). The complainant has raised strong allegations against the sand supplied to her. The main allegations are relating to the quality of the sand supplied to her by the opposite parties 1 and 2. It is contended that the complainant had contacted the first opposite party on 8.6.2010 to supply of 13 cubic meter sand and for that purpose, the complainant had remitted the amount before the first opposite party. The opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that at the time of booking of sand, they had specifically intimated the complainant tht the sand will be supplied from Chulliar or from Malapmpuzha Dam sites and the quality and quantity of the sand will be as is available in the site and no complaints will be entertained for any one regarding the quality or quantity. As such, after the remittance of the required payment and other formalities, the first and second opposite parties had supplied the sand at the site of the complainant. At that time, the complainant raised allegations against the opposite parties regarding the quality of the sand. It is contended that the complainant abused the first opposite party by using filthy language at the Lady Manager of the opposite parties 1 and 2. In order to ascertain the quality of the sand, the Forum deputed a Commissioner, and he had filed the report (Ext.C1) after the verification of the sand available at the site and he had verified the sand in the presence of the complainant and the first opposite party. In the report, it is stated that the first opposite party had not identified the sand at the site. It is stated that the sand at the site has excess clay which is not required for using the building purpose. At the time of examination, the Commissioner has stated that he has not obtained the sample sand issued by the opposite parties at the time of examination, and stated that he had examined the sand with the knowledge by experience only. The report was prepared on 31.3.2011. After considering the entire aspects of this case, it can be seen that the opposite parties had supplied the sand to the complainant on 23.06.2010 and verification of the sand was on 31.03.2011. On a verification of the documents, we are of the view that the C1 report is not at all sufficient to state that the sand has defective in quality. The verification was conducted by the commission, after 9 months from the date of supply of sand, and it was without referring the guide lines issued by the Mining and Geology Department. In this context, we are of the further view that the complainant has not able to prove that the sand supplied by the opposite parties 1 and 2 was defective. On verification of the whole matters involved in this case, we are of the view that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the side of the opposite parties, regarding the supply of sand to her. Since the allegations raised by the complaint has no merit. We are of the considered view that the complaint is to be disallowed. In this respect, the complaint is to be disallowed.
Complaint disallowed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complaiannt:-
PW1 - Sunilkumar T.N. (Witness)
PW2 - V. Sajikumar (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Original Power of Attorney deed executed by the complainant.
Ext.A2 - Original Receipt No.2862 dt. 8.6.2010 issued by the first opposite party after
accepting the amount of Rs.26,459/- by way of DD.
Ext.A3 - Copy of complaint dt. 23.6.2010 to the Manager of the first opposite party at
Palghat, regarding the quality of the sand.
Ext.A4 - Copy of the complaint filed by the complainant vide dt. 9.7.2010 before the
first opposite party
Ext.C1 - Commission Report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Lisamma Joseph (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the G.O. dt. 3.5.2010 regarding the supply of sand from the Dam
site of Malampuzha and Chulliyar through first opposite party.
Ext.B2 - Copy of the Receipt dt. 10.5.2010 regarding the supply of sand from
Malampuzha and Chulliyar Dam site, through the first opposite party.
Ext. B3 - Circular dt. 11.5.2010 regarding the supply of sand.
Ext.B4 - Copy of the application dt. 8.6.2010 of the complainant for the sand of 13
cubic meter.
Ext.B4(a) - Copy of the identity card of the complainant.
Ext.B5 - Copy of the letter dt. 8.6.2010 issued to the complainant by the first opposite
party.
Ext.B6 - Copy of the letter dt. 30.8.2010 issued by the first opposite party to the 2nd
opposite party.
Ext.B7 - Copy of the letter dt. 28.8.2010 issued by the Manager, Sidco, RM depot,
Palghat to the 2nd opposite party
Ext.B8 - Copy of the Reply letter dt. 3.9.2010 filed by the 2nd opposite party before
the Forum.
Ext.B9 - Copy of the cash memorandum issued by the office of the Palghat Division
of the first opposite party.
Ext.B10 - Copy of the Report dt. 6.5.2010 issued by the Principal, NSS College of
Engineering, Palghat.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/.Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
