IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of January, 2009
Filed on 10.01.2007
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.05/07
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
1. Sri.Rajan George, 1. M/s.M.V.Thomas & Co.Ltd,
Puthenpurayil, 28/102, Pulickal Building,
Mankamkuzhy P.O, Kallummoodu, N.H.Bypass,
Vettiyar (S). Kayamkulam 690 502.
(By Adv.N.Ruby Raj)
2. M/s.EAK Trading Agencies,
Thattarampalam, Mavelikkara.
(By Adv. S.Sankaran Nampoothiry)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows: - The complainant on 26th October 2006 purchased 60 corrugated aluminum sheets for an amount of Rs.67238/-(Rupees sixty seven thousand two hundred thirty eight only) from the 2nd opposite party. Immediately there after the sheet developed damage, and the complainant required the opposite party to replace the same. The 2nd opposite party replaced only 6 sheets, but declined to change others. The complainant on 30th November 2006 caused to issue a legal notice to the opposite party. The opposite party sent reply, but with baseless contentions. The complainant reasonably convinced that the sheets supplied by the 2nd opposite party are of inbuilt defects. The complainant was constrained to replace the impaired sheets at his own cost. The complainant sustained a financial loss of Rs.70000/-(Rupees seventy thousand only). The complainant underwent indescribable mental agony. Aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum seeking compensation and other relief.
1. Notice was sent. The 2nd opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant approached the opposite party for 22' 18' 10 sheets. The said sheets were not in stock with the opposite party. The 2nd opposite party advised the complainant to purchase the said sheets from M/s.A.V.Thomas & Company. The complainant again approached the 2nd opposite party and impressed upon the 2nd opposite party that the former was not prepared to provide the sheets on credit. The 2nd opposite party purchased the said sheets on their own bill from M/s.A.V.Thomas & Company and delivered the same to the complainant on credit. The complainant till this time did not make the payment of the sheet which amounts to Rs.59000/-(Rupees fifty nine thousand only). Towards the said liability, the complainant handed over a cheque to the opposite party and the said cheque still remains in the custody of the opposite party. There was no occasion for the opposite party to make any promise. The complainant at the time of the receipt of the sheet acknowledged that the sheets are in good condition. As a matter of fact, there could be no financial loss to the opposite party. The said aluminum sheet even if sold as scrap will procure 75% of its actual value, the opposite party contends. The 2nd opposite party is not liable to the damage if any caused to the said sheets. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, argues the 2nd opposite party.
2. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as Pw1, and the documents Exbts A1 to A4 were marked. Exbt A1 is the bill issued to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party, A2 is the lawyer's notice issued to the 2nd opposite party, and A3 and 4 are the reply notices. On the side of the opposite party Exbt B1 to B3 were marked.
3. Keeping in view the contentions of both the parties, the issues come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) whether the sheets delivered by the opposite parties are inherently defective? (2) whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. The case of the complainant is that the sheets he purchased from the opposite party were not perfect. Notwithstanding his demand the 2nd opposite party was not prepared to replace the same save a few. The 2nd opposite party contends that the sheets were defect free, and the 2nd opposite party actually helped the complainant to get sheets on credit from the 1st opposite party. The complainant had acknowledged in writing as to the flawlessness of the said sheets. We carefully perused the materials placed on record. It appears that the complainant has produced no evidence to show that the sheets were replaced by him on his on cost. The case of the opposite party is that the complainant purchased the sheets on credit. The said contention has remained unchallenged or untouched by the complainant. The complainant is totally unarmed with grated to the plight of the sheets and its use. In this context, we have no other course open, but to accept the contentions of the opposite party
In view of the discussion made herein above, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of January 2009.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Rajan George (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The bill issued to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party
Ext. A2 - The lawyer’s notice issued to the 2nd opposite party
Ext.A3 & A4 - Reply notices dated, 13.12.2006 & 10.12.2006
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext. B1 - Retail Invoice (Credit) Bill No.3131 dated, 26.10.2006
Ext. B2 - Credit Bill (Invoice No.1085) dated,26.10.2006
Ext. B3 - Cheque from the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
