IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 340/09 DATED 11.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Dr.S.Rajendra, Managing Trustee, M/s Parvathamma Narasimhaiah Charitable Trust (Regt.), Office at No.181/B, 5th Cross, A Block, Bannimantap, Mysore-570015.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.Sudharshan.V., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Smt.Vijaya Hoysala, Proprietress, M/s Hoysala Electrical, Shop at 1417, CH 25, 5th Cross, Krishnamurthypuram, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.Bhaskar.A.M, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 09.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 30.09.2009<br /> Date of order : 11.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 MONTHS 11 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant ahs filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party, seeking direction to refund Rs.1,56,241.20, the excess amount collected towards supply of the electrical goods and further, to direct to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and so also, cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, the complainant Trust started construction of school building. Opposite party is dealer in electrical accessories. Since, the requirement of the complainant was in huge quantity, the opposite party offered discount up to 50%. The opposite party delivered goods as narrated in paragraph 4 of the complaint, worth Rs.1,25,728.20. On the demand of the opposite party, advance payment was made. The total amount paid by the complainant was Rs.3,81,970/-. The details are mentioned in para 5 of the complaint. The opposite party received back certain items, which were damaged or in excess of requirement amounting to Rs.9,903.91. The opposite party collected excess money against actual supply. The statement in respect of the supply of the goods by the opposite party and the price and the payment made, is enclosed. Out of the excess amount received, the opposite party returned a sum of Rs.50,000/- each on two occasions. Rs.1,56,241.20 is still due. The opposite party having not supplied the goods for the said amount, it is prayed by the complainant to refund the same. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the version, the opposite party has admitted certain facts. In fifth paragraph, it is contended that, the agreement between Dr.Rajendra, Managing Trustee of the complainant and husband of the opposite party is not within her personal knowledge. It is stated, only a sum of Rs.70,000/- has been paid by the complainant. Return of goods alleged, is denied. Likewise, offer to give discount upto 50% is denied. It is contend that, as per the desire of the complainant, bills were issued and so also, returned the amount. It is contend that, on credit basis on the request of Dr.Rajendra goods were supplied. It is contend that, the opposite party finalized the account with mutual understanding of Dr.Rajendra, opposite party and her husband. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In support of the facts alleged in the complaint, the Managing Trustee of the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced several documents. On the other hand, opposite party has filed her affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments of learned advocates for the complainant as well as opposite party. For the opposite party, written arguments are also filed. We have perused the entire material on record.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that, the opposite party did not supply the electrical goods to the extent, the amount received as claimed in the complaint and that it is entitled for refund of the said amount?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point No. 1:- The transaction between the parties is admitted. So for concerned to discount claimed by the complainant, though that has been denied by the opposite party, in the version it is stated that, maximum discount has been given as shown in the invoices. Invoices are on record. Wherein, the discount given at different rate against various items is mentioned. Except few items, on all most all remaining items 50% discount is shown. After discount, the bills are issued and hence, there is no dispute as regards, the amount shown in the bills.<br /> <br /> 8. The complainant has claimed that the opposite party supplied goods on some occasions and thereafter, the opposite party demanded advance and since, the requirement of the complainant was regular towards the construction of the school building, the total amount paid was Rs.3,81,970/-. Whereas the price of the goods supplied was Rs.1,25,728.80. Though, the opposite party in the version tried to dispute the total amount paid by the complainant as alleged, has admitted that on two occasions a sum of Rs.50,000/- was repaid to the complainant. In fact, this is pleaded in the complaint itself. So also, though, the opposite party seriously disputed the payment of the amount by the complainant as alleged, in the written arguments, it is stated that, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the complainant through a cheque, but that cheque has not been encashed. Hence, under the circumstances, if really, as claimed by the complainant, the complainant had not paid the advance amount, there was no occasion or reason for the opposite party to refund or repay part of the amount noted above.<br /> <br /> 9. The material dispute raised at the time of arguments, which is mentioned in the written arguments of the opposite party is that, the wire supplied in some packs was 90 mtrs and in other packs 180 mtrs. It is mentioned in the written arguments that, according to the complainant only 2700 kms wire has been supplied, whereas actual supply is 4500 mtrs. To substantiate the fact that to such an extent or quantity wire was supplied by the opposite party to the complainant, there is no evidence. This fact has not at all been pleaded in the version and stated by the opposite party in the affidavit. Under the circumstances, said contention put forth by the opposite party at the time of arguments, cannot be accepted, particularly there being no evidence at all. If really, as contended opposite party had supplied the wire to the said extent, that could have been shown in the bills or invoices.<br /> <br /> 10. The opposite party in the version, at para 5 alleging certain facts stated in the complaint, has mentioned that the agreement between the trustee Dr.Rajendra and husband of the opposite party is not within her knowledge. But, quite contrary to it, in the 10th para of the version, it is stated that, the opposite party supplied the goods on credit on the request of Dr.Rajendra and the opposite party finalized the account by mutual understanding with said Dr.Rajendra by the opposite party along with her husband etc., Hence, the contention of the opposite party is not consistent.<br /> <br /> 11. Considering the facts and the material on record, it has been established by the complainant that, the complainant had paid the amount as claimed and to that extent, opposite party has not supplied the goods worth Rs.1,56,241.20 and as such, the complainant is entitle to the same. <br /> <br /> 12. Accordingly we answer the point partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 13. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to refund Rs.1,56,241.20 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 17.11.08, within a month from the date of this order.<br /> 3. The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and inconvenience caused, within a month from the date of this order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a.<br /> 4. So also, the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 11th December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />