BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 23rdJune 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.122/2017
(Admitted on 5.4.2017)
Mangalore YanthrikaMeenugarara,
PrathamikaSahakariSangha (N),
No.6740, South Wharf,
Bunder, Mangalore 575001.
Represented by its Secretary,
Mr.Vinod Kumar, Aged about 32 years,
S/o Rama Suvarna,
Residing at Thokur, Shediguri,
Mangalore.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for the Complainant by Sri SKU)
VERSUS
N.S.Rama Rao Body Works,
No.54, GST Road,
Guindy, Chennai 600032.
Represented by its Proprietor,
Phone No.044.22341281.
…. Opposite Party
(Opposite Party Ex parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D
This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainantclaimstwo Ashok Leyland Diesel Tanker chassis purchased by it from T.V. SundramIyengar and Sons Pvt.Ltd on 31.10.2016 was delivered to Opposite Party for construction of cabin with fabrication and erection of 20 K.L tank with 4 compartments as per BPCL specifications on the quotation submitted by Opposite Party. After accepting the said quotation it’son 07.11.2016 the two chassis had delivered the said and entrusted the work of construction of cabin with fabrication and erection of 20 K.L. tank with 4 compartments to Opposite Party on total cost of Rs.14,80,000/. On this same day of quotation complainant paid as per the terms of the contract 50% i.e. Rs.7,40,000/ of the cost of the said work as advance amount through RTGS complainant’s Bank at Mangalore. Even though Opposite Party received the said sum was sent by complainant was required to complete the work undertaken within 4 to 6 weeks i.e. on or before 19.12.2016. However Opposite Party did not deliver the constructedtanker to complainant which is required to use by complainant for supply of diesel to its members fishing boats/vessels. The complainant would have earned opposite parties Rs.7,800/ per day by utilising thetanker for transportation of 80 K.L. diesel per day for distributingto the members and there by sufferedloss assessed at Rs.1,87,200/ as on 11.2.2017. The complainant had issued a legal notice dated 11.2.2017 Opposite Party pay to deliver the 2 vehicles after completing entire body works as per latest BPCL specifications seeks reliefs claim to the complainant.
2.Opposite Parties despite of service of notice in need absent and there is placedexparte.
3. In support of the above complaint the complainantVinod Kumar, filed affidavit evidence as (CW1)and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C8 as detailed in the annexure here below.Since the Opposite Party is exparte not lead evidence nor placed any documents before the fora.
4. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Negative
Point No.(iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
5. POINTS No. (i)and (ii):On going through complaint it is clear from the complainant sassertion and the documents produced by complainant including affidavits evidence. Opposite Party as per Ex.C2 given the quotation construction work of the tankers on the 2 chassis for a total sum of Rs.14,80,000/ after discount at Rs.50,000/, Ex.C3 is intimation sent to complainant by Opposite Party on behalf of Opposite Party by one L. Arun as per this E-mail communication Opposite Party undertook to deliver refabricated tanker on February 28th 2017 there was also request to send the drivers to collect the vehicles. Another 2 Email copies addressed to Opposite Party which are on February 27th and February 28threspectively indicate complainant requesting date of delivery of the vehicle and in the 2nd of this E-mail mentions Opposite Party had told that date of delivery 28th February 2017 but it was not delivered and from 6thof date of delivery. Ex.C4 is the 2 acknowledgments given by Opposite Party of receiving delivery of the 2 chassis for construction of the tanker both are dated 1.12.2016. Ex.C5 is the extract of the pass book of complainant’s bank account showing transfer of Rs.7,40,057.50 on 7.11.2016 to Opposite Party. Ex.C6 is the copy of the legal notice and receipt served on Opposite Partyas per Ex.C7.
6. In this case though in the first of the E-mail from Opposite Party it mentions that vehicles would be ready for delivery on 28.2.2017 and seeks drivers to be sent to collect the vehicles. There are no communicationsproduced by complainant to show that it sent drivers to take delivery of vehicles. In fact subsequent 2 E-mail of Opposite Party of seeking take delivery of vehicle on 28.2.2017 complainant did not produced any document of refusal to give delivery of the completely fabricated tankers to complainant or its men.
7. As seen from the Email sent by complainant to Opposite Party on 28.2.2017, it says vehicles are not received. But, on toplace of deliver there are no documents to show whether vehicles to be collected at opposite partys place of Opposite Party to deliver of complainants place. However, as such from Ex.C1 chassis was required to be delivered at opposite party’s works. Hence we are justified in interesting complainant has to collect the finished product the tankers from opposite parties works. In fact it is none of thecase of complainant that despite sending drivers to take deliveryof the tankers from the works shop of Opposite Party delivery of the fabricated tankers were not delivered. As such we are of the view that if cannot be stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Hence we answerpoint no.2 answer in the negative.
8.POINTS NO.3:In any case it is noted Opposite Party cannot dispute any of the documents referred above that the 2 chassis taken delivery by Opposite Party belongs to complaint and that complainant paid 50% agreed amount i.e. Rs.7,40,000/ by RTGS. Subject to payment of the balance amount it would be open to complainant to take delivery of the 2 tankers.
Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 6dictated by President to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd June 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(LAVANYA M RAI) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Vinod Kumar,
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1:14.10.2016: Quotation issued by Opposite Party.
Ex.C2: 7.11.2016: Quotation issued by Opposite Party.
Ex.C3: Copy of the E-mails (3 in nos).
Ex.C4: 1.12.2016: Certificate issued by Opposite Party.
Ex.C5: 2.3.2017: Account statement issued by State Bank of India.
Ex.C6: 11.2.2017: Office copy of the legal notice with postal receipt.
Ex.C7: Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.C8: The authorisation letter.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated: 23.6.2017 PRESIDENT
