This case is coming for final hearing on 12-06-2014 in the presence of Sri M.Satyanarayana Advocate for the Complainant and Opposite Party called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.                                                                                                                                             

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the complainant is that he approached the opposite party on 26.11.2012 to purchase Teak Wood from the Village by name Chettupalli of the opposite party for the quantity of about 550 feet @ Rs.680/- per one feet for the purpose of his cupboard works and other household wood works.  On the same day i.e., 26.11.2012 the opposite party agreed to supply the teak wood for an amount of Rs.3,74,000/- and according to that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- towards advance amount to the opposite party out of Rs.3,74,000/- and the opposite party executed  an acknowledgment for the same with affixed of Rs.2/- revenue stamps.  According to that agreement, the teak wood should supply within 15 days from the date of agreement and the remaining amount will be paid by the complainant when ever delivered the teak wood.  The complainant stated that the opposite party failed to deliver the teak wood as per the agreement made by him on 26.11.2012 and postponed to supply teak wood.  The complainant made several phone calls but he did not respond, then he approached the opposite party directly at his village and requested the opposite party about the teak wood and then, the opposite party requested the complainant that he will supply the wood within one month.  But even after one month also, the opposite party did not supply any teak wood and further the opposite party told that the stock is not available with him.  Then, the complainant finally asked about his advance amount of Rs.50,000/- back which was paid by him at the time of agreement towards advance amount. But the opposite party postponed the issue without assigning any valid reason and he failed to supply either the teak wood or to return the advance amount. 

2.       Finally, the complainant issued a legal notice to opposite party on 20.07.2013 and the same was returned back with an endorsement “refused to receive” on 27.07.2012.  The complainant stated that he is a Government licensed contractor and have a good reputation and he has no spare time to approached the opposite party for several times and hence he purchased the entire teak wood from another trader and completed his household works.  The acts of the opposite party caused mental agony and financial hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party

a) to pay Rs.50,000/- which was paid by the complainant towards amount with interest at Rs.2/- per month.

b) to pay Rs.75,000/- towards compensation besides costs.

2.       On the otherhand, the opposite party even on receipt of the notice from the Forum unserved with an endorsement ”addressee refused”, hence called absent and set exparte.

3.       At the time of enquiry, the Complainant filed affidavit along with documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A4. 

4.       In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

          Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

5.       The fact that as per Ex.A1 i.e., agreement/acknowledgment issued by the opposite party is clearly shows that the opposite party received Rs.50,000/- towards advance payment out of the total amount and it is also clearly mentioned that per one feet he charged Rs.680/- and opposite party agreed to supply 550 feet and in total it was Rs.3,74,000/-.  Ex.A2 is the measurement slips regarding the teak wood on the same day i.e., 26.11.2012 issued by the opposite party.  As per the assertion made by the complainant even on receipt of advance amount Rs.50,000/- by the opposite party he avoid to supply the teak wood.  Then, he approached several times, but the opposite party postponed the issue without assigning any valid reason.  Then the Complainant issued a registered lawyer’s notice i.e., Ex.A3 on 20.07.2013 and the same was refused by the opposite party with an endorsement “refused to receive” and the same was returned i.e., Ex.A4, which clearly shows its deficiency in service on his part and also negligent attitude of the opposite party. 

6.       After careful analysation of the facts of the complaint with related documents, the Forum is of the view that the complainant gave Rs.50,000/- towards advance payment to purchase teak wood for the purpose of his Flat cupboard works and household wood works, the opposite party also issued a receipt regarding the advance payment and accepted that he will deliver the teak wood within 15 days to the complainant but failed to do so, which clearly shows his deficiency in service on his part.  Hence, he is liable to return that amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of payment i.e., 26.11.2012 with interest at 9% p.a.

7.       Moreover, the lawyer’s notice returned with an endorsement “refused to take” and also the notice issued by the Forum also returned with an endorsement “refused to take” which clearly shows the negligent attitude of the opposite party.  There is no doubt that because of non supply of teak wood, the complainant suffered lot of mental and financial hardship and hence he can entitle an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation which would be just and proper.

          Accordingly, this point is answered.

8.       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- with 9% p.a. interest from 26.11.2012 till the date of payment to the complainant.  The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.1,000/-.  Time for compliance one month.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 20^th day of June, 2014.

Member                                                                          President (FAC)

                                                                             District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                       Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Party:

NIL

    Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

  Member                                                                         President (FAC)

                                                                             District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                       Visakhapatnam