Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/31/2021

Sri.P.Lohith s/o Puttaswamy.K.S - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nagesh Kumar S S/o Shivakumar Achar - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanarayanarao

21 Jun 2021

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:19/04/2021

DISPOSED      ON:21/06/2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:31/2021

DATED: 21^St June 2021

PRESENT: -     Smt. H.N. MEENA.                       RESIDENT

                        B.A., LL.B.,  

                        Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.COM LL.B.,          MEMBER         

                     Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B.,        .MEMBER

                      

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. P. Lohith S/o Puttaswamy K.S. Aged about 30 Years Kabeerananda Nagara, Chitradurga. Cell No. 9538283030   (Rep., by Sri. P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, advocate)
V/S
….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	Nagesh Kumar S. S/o Shivakumara Achar Proprietor, V.S. Engineering Works, No. 3, Number 66, Shiva Lay-Out Gnana Bharathi University Road, Mariyappanapalya, Nagadevanhally, Bangalore.

 

By Sri. G. Sreepathi, Member.

:ORDERS ON ADMISSIBILITY OF COMPLAINT:

The Complainant has filed this complaint against Op and prays to direct the OP to pay Rs. 16,68,600/- as compensation towards damages, mental agony, distress, inconvenience caused, loss of earning, loss of reputation and hopes in future to the complainant and cost of proceedings etc., from the date of filing this complaint till its realization and to grant such other feasible relief by allowing the complaint and to pass award against the Op.

2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, complainant is a permanent Resident of Chitradurga. He is a unemployed graduate and skilled worker. The Op is the manufacturer of Areca leaf plate making machines and other allied machineries and all kinds of Engineering works and Fabrication works and all kinds of Lathe and Drilling works, work spot is situated at Bangalore. Op has got very good reputation in their field. For their items, Op has given wide range publicity to invite the customers.

3. The counsel for the complainant has argued that, during the month of March 2020, the complainant intends to put-up a Areca Leaf Plate making factory at Chitradurga in a Rented premises. Accordingly the complainant has approached and contacted Op to know the pros and cons of the installation of Areca leaf plate making machine. Accordingly complainant requested Op to visit Chitradurga for feasibility of area and other requirement. Then complainant has decided to purchase the machines from Op by borrowing hand loans, Bank loans. Further the Ops have visited Chitradurga on 17/03/2020 and complainant has paid Rs. 60,000/- towards advance in cash to Op by accepting terms and conditions for delivery of machines and cash transactions and other procedures. Accordingly firm have issued quotation dated 06/03/2020 and 18/05/2020, the Op’s have issued Invoice for Semi Automatic Areca Leaf Plate making Machine along with literature.

4. Further counsel for complainant submits that the Ops have violated the terms and conditions, they have not supplied the machinery within 15 days from the date of Invoice and they Instead of supplying their own company machine, they have supplied machine and accessories of M/s Mothers Technology company which is worth about Rs. 1,28,800/-. The Complainant contacted Op over phone many times and finally he has lodged police complaint on 12/10/2020 against Firm Authority. Finally after lapse of 8 months, on 08/01/2021, they have remitted Rs. 2,07,537/- to the complainant account in equal two installments through mobile banking transactions.

5. The counsel for complainant have vehemently addressed his arguments to pass appropriate order in favour of complainant, we have perused the complaint and the documents produced by the complainant namely notarized copy of Invoice dated 18/05/2020, literature of Machinery, Police complaint dated 12/10/2020 and 18/11/2020, statement of complaint dated nil and dated 09/01/2021, Endorsement given by Town Police Station Chitradurga dated 17/11/2020, Office copy of legal notice dated 25/02/2021 and postal receipt and acknowledgement. Also the complainant has claimed Rs. 16,68,600/- towards Raw Materials stock, rent, electricity, Bank interest etc., for which to substantiate the same, the complainant have not produced any document. Further it is pertinent to note that as per the endorsement given before the Police on 17/11/2020, both Op and complainant agreed to take back the complaint after accepting Cheque No.801274 for Rs. 2,07,543/- drawn on S.B.I. and agreed to transfer the same to the account of complainant on 02/12/2020. Finally OP’s have remitted Rs. 2,07,543/- the account of complaint on 09/01/2021 in equal two instalments through mobile banking transactions. With this complainant has received back entire amount without any protest.

6. In this regard, it is relevant to state that the complainant has received entire amount from OP on 09/01/2021 and approached Commission for relief on 19/04/2021 against Op by filing complaint, as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Case of Chittiprolu Lokeswara Rao V/s The Divisional Manager, the United India Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2014 NCJ Page-277 (NC) Inanother Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 400-United India Insurance V/s Ajmer Singh cotton and General Mills and Ors.,  their lordship has held that. As complainant has accepted amount in full and final satisfaction of claim then complaint filed by him is not maintainable (para-11)

7. Further on perusal of the complaint and documents produced by the complainant and averments made in the complaint, it is evident that the complainant has received the entire amount of the machinery towards full and final satisfaction of claim as per endorsement given before the police dated 17/11/2020 without any protest, with this no relief can be allowed later on.

8. Hence as discussed above, the complaint is not maintainable before this commission and accordingly we proceed to pass the following.

9. As the case is posted for orders on 30/04/2021 and the same was ready, due to Covid Pandamic pronounced on 21/06/2021.

                                ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this commission for adjudication and the same is rejected.

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by the him, corrected and then pronounced by us on 21/06/2021)

 

LADY MEMBER                      MEMBER                    PRESIDENT