BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

          Present:Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT

   Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member 

   Sri G.Sreenivas Rao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR), Male Member

Friday, the 1^st day of April, 2011

CC. No.  49 of  2010

Between:

Syed. Khadar Pasha

S/o Sha Md. Khadri,

Age: 42 years, Occ: Battery Machanic,

R/o Gajwel V&M, Dist. Medak.                                              … Complainant

          And

N.B. Ravi,

S/o Late Ramanatha,

Age: 35 years, Occ: Business,

R/o Gajwel V&M, Dist. Medak,

C/o Saraswathi Binny Rice Mill,

Pidcheds Road, Gajwel.                                                        ….Opposite party

This case came up for final hearing before us on 24.03.2011 in the presence of Sri A. Harikrishna, Advocate for complainant, opposite party being absent,  on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following

O R D E R

(Per Sri P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)

                   The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to award compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.

The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:

1.             The complainant and the opposite party are residents of Gajwel Village and Mandal, Medak District. The complainant has been running a mechanic shop under the name and style BABA Batteries sales and service at Gajwel since 20 years. The opposite party has been running transport company under the name and style  9 No.Lorry transport, at Gajwel and Hyderabad. The opposite party

transport  goods from Hyderabad to Gajwel and from Gajwel to Hyderabad. On 19.06.2010 the complainant has purchased two batteries (Jacakn Heavy duty) for Rs. 5,400/-  at Hyderabad and on the same day they were handed over to the opposite party at their branch office situated in old  Fheelkhana, Hyderabad to deliver the same to the complainant at his shop at Gajewel. The opposite party has not delivered the said two batteries to the complainant even after 20 days. When the complainant went to the opposite party’s office at Gajwel to enquire the opposite party used filthy language against him and threatened him, without giving any proper reasons for not delivering batteries to him. The complainant then got a legal notice issued on 14.07.2010 to the opposite party by registered posted acknowledgement due. The opposite party having received the same kept quite which clearly shows the negligence of the opposite party. Non delivery of the batteries to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant is entitled for damages of Rs. 50,000/- including the value of the batteries.

2.                The notice sent to the opposite party through this forum was returned unserved. On the request of the complainant’s advocate notice of the opposite party was published in Telugu Daily News Paper. Even after the publication the opposite party was called absent. Therefore the matter has been proceeded in his absence.

3.                To prove the complaint averments complainant’s evidence affidavit is filed and Exs. A1 to A6 documents are marked on his behalf. Written arguments of complainant filed. No oral arguments are advanced. Perused the record.

4.                The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- prayed for?

Point:

5.                Complainant’s case is that on 19.06.2010 he purchased two batteries for Rs. 5,400/- at Hyderabad and handed over them to the opposite party for being delivered to the complainant at Gajwel, but the opposite party failed to deliver which has necessitated the complainant to issue a legal notice. Even after receipt of the notice the opposite party  failed to respond. Hence the complaint.

6.                As already stated above the complainant’s evidence affidavit is filed to prove the complaint averments, which is almost a re-iteration of the complainant averments. Documents marked are: Ex.A1 is invoice standing in the name of complainant showing Rs.5200/- as the value of two batteries at Rs.2600/- per battery. Ex.A2 is a slip of 9 No. lorry transport of Hyderabad having daily parcel service to Gajwel. In the said slip it is written as “SKP Gajwel 2 batteries”. Ex.A3 is Xerox copy of  Gram panchayat receipt for carrying on battery sales and service business by the complainant. Ex.A4 is office copy of legal notice. Ex.A5 is postal registration receipt and Ex.A6 is postal acknowledgement.

7.                Complainant has averred that he has delivered two batteries to the opposite party at Hyderabad, and to prove the same he has  produced Ex.A2. On a reading of 2nd paragraph  of the complaint together with the contents of Ex.A2 the said averment can be said to be proved. It is clear from them that 9 No. Lorry transport belongs to opposite party and the complainant has delivered the batteries in the office of the opposite party under Ex.A2. The contention of the complainant is that the said batteries are not delivered to him at his Gajwel shop.  In Ex.A4 legal notice also such allegation is made. Ex.A6 shows that the opposite party has received the said notice. The contention of the complainant is that there is no response to Ex.A4. Even though the opposite party has received the legal notice under Ex.A6, when notice of this complaint was sent by this forum to the very same address, that notice was returned unserved. For the purpose of reference the said returned cover is now marked as Ex.F1.The opposite party has not contested this matter. In the circumstances it is clear that the opposite party is negligent and deficient in service and is therefore liable to pay the value of the batteries i.e. Rs. 5,200/-. The complainant is entitled to the said amount i.e. Rs.5,200/- but not Rs. 5,400/- as claimed in the complaint. The complaint is further entitled to damages for the deficiency in service of the opposite party. The point is answered in favour of the complainant.

8.                 In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 5,200/- towards the value of the two batteries and Rs.2,000/- towards damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of this litigation. One month time is granted for payment of above amounts.

                   Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this         1^st        day of April, 2011.

         Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                          Sd/-

  PRESIDENT                       LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

Copy to

1. The Complainant                   Copy delivered to the Complainant/
2. The Opp.party                                          Opp.party on _______
3. Spare copy                              Dis.No.                 /2011, dt.