Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/11/47

S. Naresh S/o Muralidhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Lucky Traders (Steel & Cement), represented by its Proprietor, Gopal Reddy - Opp.Party(s)

Sri D. Shiva Kumar

17 Feb 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

   Friday, the 17^th day of February, 2012 

                                                     Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

        Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member     

         Smt. D. Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B., Member        

C.C.NO. 47  Of   2011

Between:-

S. Naresh S/o Muralidhar, age 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.3-106, Ghanpoor village and mandal, Mahabubnagar District.  

                                                                  … Complainant

And

M/s Lucky Traders (Steel & Cement), represented by its Proprietor, Gopal Reddy, situated at Opposite Balaji Nagar, Mythrinagar, Bhoothpur road,  Mahabubnagar.

                                                      … Opposite Party

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 10-2-2012 in the presence of Sri D. Shiva Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri P. Amba Shankar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

                                                                                                     O R D E R

 (Smt. D. Nirmala, Member)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for rendering defective services in sale of goods besides costs of the complaint. 

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The opposite party is the firm and Mr. Gopal Reddy is the proprietor to the said firm.  The nature of the business is sale of steel and cement under the name and style of M/s Lucky Traders (Steel & Cement), Mahabubnagar.  In order to construct the shopping complex at Bhoothpur proper Mahabubnagar District, he purchased the steel at the opposite party’s firm on three occasions by contacting him on phone and the opposite party supplied and delivered the same at construction spot. In the above two occasions the complainant suspected the quantity of steel which is supplied by the opposite party.  Thereafter the complainant again approached the opposite party for want of steel of 6 mm. rods on 8-1-2011 and the opposite party delivered the same directly at construction spot in his absence and handed over the purchase bill No.935 for 185 Kgs., to an amount of Rs.6,400/- including transport charges. The complainant further stated that he weighed the said material at Sree Bhanu Weigh Bridge, Bhoothpur vide bill No.1092 and on being suspected the weight of the steel noticed that the original quantity of the steel was 145 Kgs., and there was shortage of 40 Kgs., quantity as was mentioned in the bill.  Thereupon the complainant approached the opposite party to enquire into the matter and showed the bill issued by concerned weigh bridge authority. But the opposite party did not care. Finally on  31-1-2011 the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite party by demanding him to deduct the amount for 40 Kgs., of steel from the bill and the opposite party has intentionally refused the said notice in receiving the same. The wrongful mentioning of quantity in the purchase bill of the complainant amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in respect of sale of goods to the customer. Hence the present complaint is filed for the above said relief.        

3. The opposite party filed counter denying the averments made in the complaint and stated that the complainant purchased the steel on two or three occasions. The complainant purchased steel of 6 mm. rods weight  185 Kgs., for Rs.6,400/- on 8-1-2011 is correct.  The opposite party further stated that he never supplied and delivered the steel at the alleged construction site. The complainant himself visited the opposite party and purchased the steel and took in an auto having satisfied with quality, quantity and price and the complainant further assured the opposite party that he would pay the amount on the next day. The opposite party further stated that the allegation of the complainant that he weighed the said steel at Sree Bhanu Weigh Bridge, Bhoothpur vide bill No.1092 and on being suspected the weight of steel noticed that the original quantity of steel was 145 Kgs., that there was a shortage of 40 Kgs., quantity as was mentioned in the bill and the complainant approached the opposite party to enquire into the matter and showed the weigh bill issued by the concerned weigh bridge authority and on 31-1-2011 the complainant issued notice to the opposite party and the opposite party refused to receive is not correct.  This opposite party further stated that he is unaware of this fact and there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of him and this opposite party is not liable to pay anything to the complainant.       

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On the other hand, the opposite party filed his proof affidavit and got marked Ex.B-1 on his behalf.

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

    (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him? 

    (iii)  To what effect? 

6. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that in order to construct the shopping complex at Bhoothpur, Mahabubnagar he purchased steel of 6 mm. rods on 8-1-2011 from the opposite party. The opposite party delivered the same directly at construction spot in his absence and handed over the purchase bill No.935 for 185 Kgs., to an amount of Rs.6,400/- including transport charges and then he weighed the said material at Sree Bhanu Weigh Bridge, Bhoothpur vide bill No.1092 and on being suspected the weight of the steel he noticed that the original quantity of the steel was only 145 Kgs., as against 185 Kgs., as such there was a shortage of 40 Kgs., of steel.  Immediately he then approached the opposite party and showed the bill issued by concerned authority but the opposite party did not care.  Finally on 31-1-2011 he got issued legal notice to the opposite party demanding him to deduct the amount for 40 Kgs., from the bill. The opposite party refused to receive the same. Such act on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

7. On this aspect, the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that on 8-1-2011 the complainant approached the opposite party and purchased steel of 6 mm. rods weighing 185 Kgs., for Rs.6,299/-, Rs.80/- binding wire and Rs.20/- towards Hamali charges total amounting at Rs.6,400/- and the complainant himself took it in an auto after satisfying himself with regards to the quality, quantity and price, with an assurance   that he would pay the amount on the next day.

8. Now the question that has to be seen is whether the opposite party delivered the goods directly to the construction spot in the absence of the complainant? To come to the conclusion on this point the burden lies on the complainant to establish this point. To strengthen his case, the complainant filed the Exs.A-1 to A-7.  It is a fact borne out from the record i.e., Ex.A-1 is the bill issued by the opposite party that the complainant purchased 6 mm. rods weight 185.2 Kgs., and total Rs.6,400/-. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the said material was delivered directly at the construction spot in the absence of the complainant.  When the said material was weighed there was a shortage of 40 Kgs., as mentioned in Ex.A-2. Exs.A-2 and A-3 are the bills relied upon by the complainant. No doubt the recitals of Exs.A-2 and A-3 clearly shows that there was a shortage of 40 Kgs., steel.  But mere filing of the bills Exs.A-2 and A-3 is not sufficient to come to the conclusion on the above said point. First of all the complainant has to satisfy this Forum in whose presence the material was weighed? And has he informed his doubt before weighing the above said material to the opposite party? Except his self style testimony there is no other oral or documentary evidence produced by the complainant to establish the same. In the absence of any such proof, the complainant cannot say that in his absence the opposite party delivered the material directly at the construction spot.  That apart, in his complaint and affidavit evidence it is clearly mentioned that he approached the opposite party to enquire into the matter by showing the bills Exs.A-2 and A-3 which are issued by Weigh Bridge authority. This itself shows that he neither informed nor expressed his doubt about the shortage of 40 Kgs., of steel before weighing to the opposite party.  It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the bill Ex.A-1 is handed over in the absence of the complainant but the complainant failed to mention who received the said Ex.A-1. There is no oral or documentary evidence in this regard. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant that in the absence of the complainant the Ex.A-1 handed over is not tenable. Under the above said circumstances and the reasons shown supra, we hold that the complainant failed to establish the ground of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to pay any compensation.  Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite party and against the complainant.                    

9. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to the costs.  

         Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 17^th day of February, 2012.    

 

                                                  I agree                                    I agree                                                                 

 

    MEMBER                             MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

                                                                                                 Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                             On behalf of Opposite Party:   

- Nil -                                                                      - Nil -                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Original Bill/Quotation, dt.8.1.2011.

Ex.A-2: Original Bill, dt.8.1.2011.

Ex.A-3: Original Bill, dt.8.1.2011.

Ex.A-4: Copy of Legal Notice, dt.31.1.2011.

Ex.A-5: Original Registered Postal Receipt. 

Ex.A-6: Returned Registered Cover.  

Ex.A-7: Original Photograph.

On behalf of OP:        

                      Ex.B-1: Original Bill, dt.6.8.2011.                                                                                                              

 

                                                                       

                                                                        PRESIDENT

Copy to:-

1. Sri D. Shiva Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant.

2. Sri P. Amba Shankar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party.