BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 8/11.
THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Rajesh Sab S/o. Venkob Rao, Age: 49 years, Occ:
Business, R/o. Flat No. 007, Sugureshwar Towers, Kallur Colony, Station Area, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- M/s. Ganesh Saw Mill, Timber Importers &
Saw Mill Owners, Shahu Circle, Nanded Road, Lathur- 413 512.
CLAIM : For to direct the opposite to pay an amount of
Rs. 2,76,000/- for the supply of sub standard teak wood, to pay an amount of Rs. 75,000/- towards expenses alternatively to take back the low quality of teak wood at his cost and other expenses without interest and cost.
Date of institution :- 03-02-11.
Notice served :- 03-03-11.
Date of disposal :- 27-07-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. H. Dodappa, Advocate
Opposite represented by Sri. F.K. Shaik, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Rajesh Sab against M/s. Ganesh Saw Mill Lathur, Maharastra U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 2,76,000/- for the supply of sub standard teak wood, to pay an amount of Rs. 75,000/- towards expenses alternatively to take back the low quality of teak wood at his cost and other expenses with interest and cost.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, on 09-10-09 he purchased teak wood from Opposite Saw Mill to carry out wooden works to his newly built house for total amount of Rs. 2,76,000/-. After purchase of the said wood, he noticed the defect in the quality of wood while preparing doors, windows and shatters, he brought the same to the notice of opposite and requested to replace the defective and sub standard teak wood, but opposite refused to take back the teak wood, he shown his negligence and thereby, he found guilty under deficiency in its service, accordingly he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.
3. Opposite Saw Mill by its partner, filed written version by admitting the fact that, teak wood cuttings in different sizes were purchased by the complainant in huge quantity on large scale for resale and not for construction of his house, it was purchased for commercial purpose. Hence the complainant is not a consumer; he cannot maintain this complaint under provision of C.P. Act. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint, as the place of purchase was in Lathur. Opposite Saw Mill is situated in Lathur. It has no branch offices in Raichur District. Payment was made by the complainant in Lathur and lifted the wood from the Lathur itself. Hence, he cannot file Consumer Complaint before this Forum and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try it. Complainant not made any efforts to intimate the fact of such low quality of wood, immediately after purchase and thereby, it shows his malafide intention to get monetary gain after thought. All other allegations made against opposite are specifically denied and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint.?
2. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite supplied sub standard teak wood quality to him, for the cost of Rs. 2,76,000/- on 09-10-10 and thereafter he brought the defect of the wood to his notice, but he shown his negligence in replacement of good quality wood by taking back low quality of wood supplied, in spite of repeated requests and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in his service.?
3. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?
4. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint.
(2) In the Negative
(3) In the Negative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the fact involved in this point, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. Affidavit-evidence of one Basavaraj, Furniture Works of Raichur was filed, as he is expert in finding out the quality of wood, who is noted as PW-2. The documents Ex.P-1(1) to Ex.P-3 are marked. Written arguments filed.
7. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of partner of Opposite Saw Mill was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Affidavit-evidence of a labour of opposite Saw Mill was filed, who is noted as RW-2 and affidavit-evidence of the Manager of Saw Mill was filed, who is noted as RW-3. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10 are marked.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, their respective evidences and documents. We have noticed some of the following facts are undisputed facts in between the parties:-
1. It is undisputed fact that, complainant purchased teak wood cuttings in different sizes in large quantity from Opposite Saw Mill at the cost of Rs. 2,74,590/- in Lathur, Maharastra State.
2. It is undisputed fact that, Opposite Saw Mill is situated in Lathur, Maharastra State and complainant went there and purchased teak wood and he paid price there itself and lifted the wood from that place only.
3. It is further undisputed fact that, Opposite Saw Mill has no branches of its own in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
4. It is also undisputed fact that, document Ex.P-1(3) bill issued by the opposite stands in the name of G.Nagaraj C/o. address is in the name of complainant.
9. In the light of these undisputed facts in between the parties, now let us examine the first point raised by the opposite, which is territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
10. According to the complainant, this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction. According to opposite, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. Keeping in view of the submissions made on both sides, we have referred Section 11 of C.P. Act to decide as to whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction or not.
Section 11 of C.P. Act deals with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum as under:
Jurisdiction of the District Forum:- (1) subject to other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees [twenty lakhs].
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [caries on business, or has a branch office or] personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [caries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain:
Provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office,] or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.
11. In the light of the pleadings of the complainant and in the light of the undisputed facts between the parties. Section 11(2)(a)&(b) are not attractable to the present case to discuss the territorial jurisdiction. Now, it remains section 11(c), to see whether, this provision is helpful for the complainant to show that, this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint.
12. According to complainant, cause of action arisen to him, firstly when he came to know about the low standard teak wood supplied by the opposite, secondly on 25-08-10 when he got examined the wood by another carpenter and obtained certificate and thirdly when opposite refused to replace the low quality of wood. The learned advocate for opposite relied on the rulings of the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Rajkumar V/s. Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Ltd., and another reported in II (2010) CPJ 166 another case also referred in this regard.
13. By going through the facts pleaded by the complainant with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as referred above, the complainant is not able to show that, the cause of action arosen to him either wholly or in part in the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. Hence we are not convinced the submissions made by the advocate for complainant that, they have paid the amount through on line in Raichur without any records to that effect. Hence, we came to a conclusion that, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
14. On perusal of the facts pleaded by the complainant and the reliefs claimed by him in the prayer column. Admittedly he claimed for Rs. 2,76,000/-, which is worth of the teak wood supplied by the opposite, as the entire wood is of sub standard quality. In support of this contention, he examined PW-2 and his report Ex.P-3 dt. 25-08-10. On perusal of his affidavit-evidence and his report Ex.P-3, we can see that, the wood of sub standard quality is to the extent of Rs. 30,500/- only, not more than that. If it is the fact then, why the complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 2,76,000/- by saying that, the entire wood supplied by the opposite is of sub standard and low quality. It appears to us that, the complainant is not fair enough to say the real facts before this Forum. Further, it appears to us that, he wants to claim an amount of Rs. 2,76,000/- by one way or other by making false allegations that entire wood supplied by the opposite is of low quality. This attitude is not acceptable. On this count also the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint. In this regard, we have referred ruling reported in 2007 (3) ACJ NOC 467 (NCC) (DB) Foul Rajan V/s. K.M.M. Hospital and another. We have also referred unreported ruling of the Hon’ble State Commission of Maharastra in Appeal No. 26/08, Sri. Shivaraj Babu Sab Solanki V/s. Vilasrao Bapusa Patil and we have no hesitation in saying that, such act of complainant is not acceptable and thereby he is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.
16. We have no materials to say that, he purchased the wood for commercial purpose and thereby the complainant is not a consumer as submitted by the learned advocate for opposite, hence there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of opposite. Accordingly we answered this point in negative.
POINT NO.3:-
17. In view of our finding on Point Nos- 1 & 2, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.
POINT NO.4:-
18. In view of our findings on Point Nos- 1 to 3, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 27-07-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
