BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER 

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 383/2015 Filed on 07/08/2015

ORDER DATED: 19/01/2023

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

The complainant booked 50kgs. of chicken from KEPCO Outlet at Pattah on 27/04/2015 and paid an advance amount of Rs.1,000/- for the purpose of his daughter’s pre marital function, which was scheduled on 10/05/2015.  On 09/05/2015 when he approached KEPCO outlet for collecting his already booked order, the complainant came to know that 50kg of chicken that the complainant booked was not available due to insufficient stock and because of which he had to allegedly serve vegetarian food for the function.  Hence, the complainant had suffered mental agony and had filed this complaint on the grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence the complaint. 

     The opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions.  The opposite parties stated that the complainant had booked 50kgs chicken by paying a sum of Rs.1,000/-.  At the time of the booking itself, the opposite parties had clearly informed the complainant that the delivery of chicken will be subject to the availability of stock on the due date.  It was also informed that there was shortage of stock at different outlets in the city and that they cannot take prior bookings.  The complainant being a regular customer, the complainant is aware of the procedure followed by the opposite parties.  The complainant despite being warned as above, complainant insisted in booking the 50kgs chicken with the opposite parties.  The opposite parties hesitantly took booking of the order and reiterated about the shortage of stock at different outlets in the city and also informed that he has to take the advance back in case of stock shortage.  It was also informed to the complainant to check and confirm the availability of the stock one week before the due date.  The complainant had not entrusted the phone number with the opposite parties.  So, the non availability of chicken could be informed to the complainant by a staff of the opposite parties only on 05/05/2015 and 06/05/2015 and requested him to cancel the order and take back the advance amount and also to arrange for alternate stock.  The stock was not available as the Govt. Poultry Farm did not have the amount of chicken that had attained the prescribed age/due date and growth as laid down in the regulations by the Govt. of Kerala.  The KEPCO only supplies chicken that satisfies the prescribed standards laid down by Govt. of Kerala.  Because KEPCO is a responsible agency despite the non availability of phone number on the booking slip, the complainant’s residential address from the slip was traced and the complainant was informed at his place of residence on the above two dates about the non availability of stock.  Hence KEPCO had carried out its responsibility towards customer properly and diligently and not contrary to as alleged.  In such situation it is hereby informed that KEPCO have not done any kind of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service against the complainant.   The complaint came to be filed only on an experimental basis, so as to extract unlawful amount of money from a Govt. Company like KSPCO and to defame them. 

Evidence from the part of complainant consists of proof affidavit, Ext.P1 to P4 marked, complainant was examined as PW1.  The Ext.D1 was marked from the side of complainant and 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1, a witness from the side of 1^st opposite party was examined as DW2.     

Issues to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the cost and relief?

Issues: As per Ext.P1 the complainant had booked 50 kg curry cut for an amount of Rs.8,750/- and paid advance amount of Rs.1000/-. Ext.P2 is the wedding card of complainant’s daughter on 11/05/2015.  Ext.P3 series were the letter given by the complainant to opposite party under RTI Act and the reply dated 11/01/2016.  Ext.P4 is the copy of cash bill dated 30/01/2016 and retail invoice dated 30/01/2016.  Ext.D1 is the authorization letter.

As per the available evidence the complainant had booked curry cut from 1^st opposite party on 27/04/2015 and advance amount of Rs.1000/- paid to opposite parties.  It is evident from Ext.P1 that date of delivery on 10/05/2015 at the time of 8.A.M. The first contention raised by the opposite parties that the availability and supply of the chicken will be subject to the availability of the stock from the farm. As per Ext.P3 series the total stock on 10/05/2015 was 2074.853 and sold 1126.882 kg on 10/05/2015.  But the curry cut on 08/05/2015 and 09/05/2015 was 64.44kg and on 10/05/2015 was only 4.887 kg and sold 1.8 kg only.  DW2 deposed that complainant was his neighbor and invited the marriage also.  But DW2 was not attended the marriage also.  At the time of cross examination DW2 deposed that      “IÃymWw GXv aWvU-]-¯n h¨mWv F¶v F\n-¡-dn-b-¯n-Ã.  hcsâ t]cv Ad-nb-¯n-Ã.  Ieym-W-Xo-bXn HmÀ¡p-¶n-Ã.  lm¨dn worker BWv Rm³”.  DW2 deposed that he intimated the complainant to non availability of fresh chicken.  But the opposite parties had not produced documentary evidence to prove that the intimation was given to the complainant.  Deposition of DW2 was not accepted.  Because he had not know the details of complainant and marriage.  The opposite parties had not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant.   

In view of the above discussion we find that the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Due to the non availability of chicken caused much mental agony to complainant.    

 In the result complaint is allowed.  We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) as compensation for deficiency in service and pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization.               

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

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 19^th day of January,  2023.

R

C.C. No. 383/2015

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT