BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI D.TIRUMALA RAO,
FAC PRESIDENT.
SRI K.VINODH REDDY,
MEMBER.
. . .
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 44 OF 2015
Between:
S.V.Sainath S/o Late S.V.Raja Gopala Rao, Aged: 61 years,
Occ:Retd.Legal Officer in United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
R/o H.No.2-7-96/45/Plot No.6, Near: Sainikpuri, Shivalayam,
Suryapet Town Of Nalgonda District.
…Complainant.
AND
1) M/s.Maroju Engineering Works, represented by its Proprietor
Sri Maroju Sharat Chandra S/o Ramana, Aged: 33 years,
Occ: Business, R/o Near: V.R.D.R Theatre, Church Road,
Suryapet Town of Nalgonda District. Pin:508213, T.S.
2) Maroju Ramana, S/o Brahmaiah, Aged: 56 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Near: V.R.D.R. Theatre, Church Road, Suryapet Town of
Nalgonda District, Pin: 508213, T.S.
…Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before us for final disposal on this day, in the presence of Sri K.Yadaiah, Advocate for the Complainant, and Sri P.Shyam Sundar, Advocate for the Opposite Parties, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY Sri K.VINODH REDDY, MEMBER
1. The Complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- advanced by him with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of receipt of the same and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service and further a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony along with costs.
Contd…2
-2-
2. The facts leading to the filing of this complaint are as follows:
The Complainant S.V.Sainath approached the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for ordering round iron ladder steps which is to be erected in his newly constructed house. For that he paid an advance of Rs.5,000/- on 28-12-2013 and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- on dated 01-01-2014 to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in the presence of M.S.N.Reddy who countersigned the receipt given by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 as witness.
It is the say of the Complainant that the above said iron ladder steps are to be erected at his house within one week on receipt of the advance, but the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 failed to do so and he vexed with the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 who delayed the process, for that he issued a personal notice, dated 15-03-2014 to the Opposite Party No.1 demanding the advance amount with interest, but there was no response. Hence, the Complainant was compelled to file this complaint.
3. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 filed their combined written version accepting that they had received a total sum of Rs.10,000/- towards manufacture and erection of round iron ladder in the house premises of the Complainant and issued a receipt for the same.
The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 further say that as the proposed round iron ladder which is to be fixed at the Complainant’s residence is a huge one which cannot be carried as a single piece from their workshop to the residence of the Complainant, they have requested the Complainant that they will prepare the ladder in pieces and fix it in house premises of the Complainant so that they can avoid the
Contd…3
-3-
transport problem. With the permission of the Complainant they prepared the ladder within one month at the house premises of the Complainant and asked the Complainant to give permission to erect the ladder in his premises. In spite of giving the permission, he dodged the matter. Keeping some malafide intentions in his mind the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties residence in their absence and shouted at his wife.
On the instructions of the Complainant they have sold the ladder to the third party for a sum of Rs.4,500/- as the Complainant promised to bear the loss suffered by them. To avoid the payment of balance amount, the Complainant framed all the allegations on them and filed this complaint. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The Complainant and the Opposite Parties filed their chief affidavits. The Complainant marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. No document was marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of
the Opposite Parties or not?
2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to the amounts claimed?
3) If so, to what relief?
6. POINT No.1:
It is undisputed that the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- in two installments (Rs.5,000/- each) on 28-12-2013 and 01-01-2014 respectively and the same was received by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in the presence of MSN Reddy (neighbor of the Complainant) as per Ex.A-1, who countersigned the receipt. On
Contd…4
-4-
receiving the above said amount, promised to prepare the round iron ladder steps which is to be erected at the Complainant’s house. On completion of the said work the balance amount will be received.
7. Either the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 or the Complainant did not place any evidence to show that whether the ladder was prepared or not in the premises of the Complainant’s house and also did not produce any witness or affidavit of the said MSN Reddy who signed the receipt as witness. Hence, this Forum cannot come to a conclusive decision that the ladder was really made or not.
8. As per the observation by this Forum, time is not stipulated in that transaction between the parties so, therefore, time is not essential to this transaction and basing on the admissions made by the Opposite Parties in respect of the receipt of payment of Rs.10,000/- and in consideration of the fault on the Complainant also, as rightly opined by the Member of this Forum, being the President of this Forum also concurred with the same opinion.
9. In the light of the above discussion, this Forum opined that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and also contributory negligence on the part of the Complainant. Accordingly this point is answered equally on both parties in the light of deficiency and contributory negligence.
10. POINT Nos.2 & 3:
In the light of the above observation, this Forum opined that the Complainant is entitled the amounts he paid to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 by way of receipt only along with interest and the rest of the claim is dismissed.
Contd…5
-5-
In the result, we direct the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 01-01-2014 till the date of realization and costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). The above amounts shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 24th day of March, 2017.
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite Parties:
Affidavit of the Complainant. Affidavit of Opp.Party No.2.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1 Dt.28-12-2013 Original Bill for Rs.10,000/-.
Ex.A-2 Dt.15-03-2014 Xerox copy of notice issued by the
Complainant to the Opposite Parties.
Ex.A-3 Dt.15-03-2014 Postal Receipt.
Ex.A-4 Dt.10-04-2014 Xerox copy of letter addressed by the
Complainant to the Post Master, Suryapet.
Ex.A-5 Dt.11-04-2014 Postal Reciept.
Ex.A-6 Dt.19-05-2014 Complaint Settled Reply.
For Opposite Parties:
Nil.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
TO
1). Sri K.Yadaiah,
Advocate for the Complainant.
2). Sri P.Shyam Sundar,
Advocate for the Opposite Parties.
