Date of filing: 01.11.2021
Date of disposal:28.10.22
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.COM., ICWA(Inter), B.L., .....MEMBER-II
CC. No.06/2022
THIS FRIDAY, THE 28th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
Mrs.Sreeja Jayakumar,
No.65F, Sanjay Apartments, 3rd Avenue,
Bhanu Nagar, Pudur, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 053. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
Maria Buildmart,
No.30,6th Block,
Kaviyarasu Kannadasan Nagar,
Near EB, Moolakadai, Chennai – 600 118.
Residence
Mrs.Sharmila,
2nd Floor, D Block,
Navarathana Apartments,
Moolakadai, Chennai 600 118. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : party in person.
Counsel for the opposite parties : M/s.J.Anbu Rajan, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 07.10.2022 in the presence of complainant who appeared in person and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in the supply of steel along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- which she had incurred as loss in purchasing steel and labour cost for 10 days and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Sum and substance of the complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that for the purpose of construction she contacted the opposite party for supply of steel on 05.12.2020 and in pursuance Rs.1,80,000/- payment was made to them. In spite of receiving the amount, opposite party failed to supply the steel and informed the complainant that they were unable to supply the steel. When the opposite party rejected the claim, the market value of the steel increased to Rs.2,30,000/-. Thus due to the wrong commitment made by the opposite party the complainant suffered monetary loss as she had to retain the labourers in the construction site believing the false commitment and she was made to purchase the product for an escalated price. Though an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was refunded by opposite parties the complainant has lost to the tune of Rs.70,000/- as the market rate got increased. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed for the relief as mentioned below;
To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- which she had incurred as loss in purchasing steel and labour cost for 10 days;
To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on their side. Though the opposite party had filed written version they did not come forward to file proof affidavit and also failed to file any documents on their side.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not supplying the materials ordered by the complainant resulting in escalation of alternative purchase materials by the complainant has been successfully proved by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1
On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of her allegations;
Quotation given by the opposite party for supply of Tulsyan steel was marked as Ex.A1;
Bank Statement for payment of Rs.1,80,000/- to the opposite party dated 05.12.2020 was marked as Ex.A2;
Copy of bill for the purchase of steel from Mahakali Steel Enterprises dated 14.12.2020 was marked as Ex.A3;
Screenshots of the whatsapp chat with the opposite party intimating cancel of order was marked as Ex.A4;
Screenshots of the whatsapp with the opposite party pleading for the supply of material was marked as Ex.A5;
Bank Statement for the refund of amount in various instalments by opposite party was marked as Ex.A6;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 03.02.2021 was marked as Ex.A7;
Heard the oral arguments adduced by the party in person/complainant and perused the material evidence produced on behalf of her.
The crux of the arguments advanced by the party in person/complainant is that as the steel supply order by her with the opposite parties was delayed by 10 days she was made to retain the labourers in the working site causing her monetary loss to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. Further there was also escalation in the steel price when she was made to purchase alternatively from Mahakali Steel Enterprises as the opposite parties denied the supply of steels. Thus the complainant sought for a compensation of Rs.55,000/-as the expenses she incurred as loss in purchasing the steel and the labour cost for 10days along with Rs.2,00,000/- compensation for the mental agony suffered to the complainant. Thus she sought for the complaint to be allowed.
The opposite party had filed version stating that the complainant was not clear while selecting and making the order of the goods and it was further stated that as the complainant placed an order for construction steel products and subsequently, asked for “JSW” brand of steel and as the brand was not available it was informed to the complainant and that there was some difference in the cost of normal steel. Thus it was argued that the opposite party could not be held liable for the increase in the market price of the goods as the entire amount of complainant has been repaid. Thus the opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On appreciation of the material evidence submitted by the complainant we could see that the quotation given by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A1. Further an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- paid by the complainant in favour of the opposite party was also proved vide Ex.A2 dated 05.12.2020 which is the Bank Statement of Account of the complainant. The purchase of steel subsequent to the cancellation order by the opposite party from Mahakali Steel Enterprises invoice was marked as Ex.A3 wherein it was found that the steel was purchased at a cost Rs.1,68,846/- and together with the transportation charges, IGST, CGST and SGST had come to Rs.2,03,500/-. The WhatApp messages between the parties were marked as Ex.A4.
The reason for cancellation of order as per the version of the opposite party is non availability of required steel as requested by the complainant. Payment of Rs.1,80,000/- was made by the complainant to opposite party on 05.12.2020 and the refund of entire amount by the opposite party though made in installments has been completed on 19.12.2020. It is seen that in the WhatApp message dated 14.12.2020 the complainant had stated as “I trust you again.. Please supply steel along with binding roll, tomorrow…. Keep up your promise”. But as per Ex.A3 the complainant had purchased the materials from Mahakali Steel Enterprises on 14.12.2020. No evidence was produced by the complainant to show that she retained the labourers for 10 days spending a huge amount and also that she was made to shell out extra amount for the materials due to the act of the opposite party. It is not clear as to why the order was cancelled and on what reason though it is stated in the version that JSW steel was not available with the opposite party. At the most there was only 9days between the payment made by the complainant to the opposite party i.e. on 05.12.2020 and the purchase made from Mahakali Steel Enterprises on 14.12.2020. In such circumstances we cannot hold that the act of the opposite party has caused heavy monetary loss to the complainant when they have refunded the entire amount within the 10 days of cancellation i.e. on 24.12.2020. However we find that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service in taking the order from complainant without analyzing the availability of steel for which the complainant has to be compensated. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.
Point No.2:
No proof for expenses for retention of labour produced by complainant. But for the act of opposite party in taking the order and later cancelling the same we order a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant and we also award a cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing them
a) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28th day of October 2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 ............. Quotation given by the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A2 ................ Bank Statement for payment of Rs.1,80,000/- Xerox
Ex.A3 14.12.2020 Copy of bill for the purchase of steel from Mahakali Enterprises. Xerox
Ex.A4 ............. Screenshot of the whatsapp chat by the opposite party intimating the cancel of order. Xerox
Ex.A5 .............. Screeshots of the whatsapp chat by the opposite party pleadings for the supply of material. Xerox
Ex.A6 ............ Bank Statement for the refund of amount in various instalments by opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A7 03.02.2021 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
