Date of Filing : 09.10.2017
Date of Disposal: 27.05.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L. ..… MEMBER-I
THIRU P.MURUGAN, B.Com., ….. MEMBER-II
CC. No.41/2017
THIS FIRDAY, THE 27th DAY OF MAY 2022
Mr.N.Natarajan, Proprietor,
S/o.Nanni Mudhaliar,
Nayagi Masala Industries,
Pillaiyar Koil Street, Melanangoor,
Kathiruppu Post, Sirkazhi Taluk,
Nagapattinam District – 609 109. ............Complainant.
//Vs//
P.Anbalagan, Proprietor,
S/o.Peter Devanesan,
Jas Print packs,
No.3,2nd street, Krishna Nagar, Porur,
Chennai -600 116. …..Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : Mr.R.S.Bharani Vel Raj, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 19.05.2022 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate counsel for the complainant and Mr.R.S.Bharanivelraj, Advocate counsel for the oppostie party, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
The complaint has been filed U/S12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party seeking direction to the Opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.4,50,000/- for selling non-standard materials Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for costs with interest @12% till date of realization of the above amounts.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It is the case of the complainant that in October 2016 out of the total covers purchased from the opposite party 100 Covers were found to be defective and when enquired with the opposite party for exchange, the opposite party admitted for the same but was causing delay. However, the complainant in fond faith that being a regular customer the opposite party will give exchange for the defective covers ordered for 150 packages in December 2016 and Jan2017. The opposite party though was known well that more packages could not be retained had sent 128 kilograms packages. The complainant requested the opposite party to take back the defected covers and the extra covers but the opposite party though assured did not come forward to take back the same and thus committed unfair trade practice. It is submitted that the opposite party is bound to take back the defective products and return the money. Thus alleging deficiency in service the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned above.
Defense of Opposite Party by way of Written Version:-
The opposite party filed version stating that it is running the business from 2003 and until this day was suppling products without any deficiency. It is further submitted that the complainant though stated that he placed order in Oct 2016 had not stated on which date he gave the order or how much quantity he ordered and other required particulars. The opposite party submitted that even when a small defect was found in any one packet of the entire order the entire product would be cancelled and sent to the manufacturer and will be replaced which was the usual practice. It is denied by the opposite party that out of the entire order only 100 kilograms packages were not up to the standard. It is contended by the opposite party that as soon as the complainant came to know that the packages are defective he ought to have returned immediately the packages to the opposite party. Further the opposite party submitted it is strange that when a person is affected by a particular product again ordering the same product. Further the opposite party also submitted that no report from the officer who issues the quality proof Certification was produced by the complainant to prove that he was supplied defective packages. Thus stating that there is no deficiency on their part, the opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 in support of his contentions. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B7. Both the parties filed written arguments.
Point for consideration:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in suppling defective products to the complainant and if so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point:-
Heard both learned counsels appearing for the complainant and the opposite party.
The complainant had submitted documents Ex.A1 to A15 in support of his complaint allegations and the following facts stood proved out of the same:
Acknowledgement receipt issued by the opposite party dated 05.12.2016 was marked as Ex.A1;
Notice issued by the complainant dated 05.06.2017 and reply notice sent by the opposite party dated 29.06.2017 and acknowledgement card were marked as Ex.A2 to Ex.A4;
Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 23.01.2017 marked as Ex.A5;
Delivery Run Chart dated 27.01.2017 was marked as Ex.A6;
Damaged cover was marked as Ex.A7;
Photos was marked as Ex.A8;
Covers supplied by Janaki Printers to the complainant was marked as Ex.A9;
Tax Invoice issued by Janaki Printers dated 21.10.2017 marked as Ex.A10;
Certificate of registration dated 03.06.2015 was marked as Ex.A11;
License under food safety and standards Act 2006 dated 17.03.2016 was marked as Ex.A12;
Form C- License under food safety and standards Act 2006 dated 17.03.2016 was marked as Ex.A13;
License under food safety and standards act 2006 dated 31.07.2018 was marked as Ex.A14;
Judgement passed in S.T.C.No.159/2017 dated 02.01.2018 was marked as Ex.A15.
On the side of the opposite party the following documents were filed:
Tax- Invoices issued by Sun Park Food Processors dated from 2013 to 2018 were marked as Ex.B1;
Tax-Invoices issued by D.S.Masala dated from 2013 to 2015 were marked as Ex.B2;
Tax-Invoices issued by Rani Masala were marked as Ex.B3;
Tax-invoices issued by Nayagi Masala were marked as Ex.B4;
Packing covers supplied by Sun Park Food Processors was marked as Ex.B5;
Packing covers supplied by Rani Masala was marked as Ex.B6
Packing covers supplied by D.S. Malala was marked as Ex.B7.
Heard the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the written arguments filed by both parties. It is represented by the counsel for the opposite party that written arguments may be treated as oral arguments and orders may be passed.
The crux of the arguments advanced by the complainant is that he was carrying business in the name of Nayaki masala industries and was a regular customer of the opposite party. It is contended that in Oct‘ 2015 out of the total products 100kgs covers were defective as proved by Ex.A7. Further when enquired with the opposite party, the opposite party promised to exchange the same however failed to do so. In Dec 2016 and Jan 2017 the complainant further ordered for 150kgs packing material but the opposite party sent 218 kgs without the consent of the complainant. The counsel for the complainant denied this complaint as a counter blast for the cheque case filed by the opposite party. Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice he sought for the complaint to be allowed.
The counsel for the opposite party filed written arguments stating that this opposite party is carrying on business from 2003 successfully and all the packing covers are produced in a similar manner before the name of the concern is printed. The opposite party further stated in the complaint that the complainant has not given the particulars as to when the order was placed, how much order was given, how the covers are defective and whether all the covers were found to be defective etc. It is also stated that if the covers were found defective a normal prudent man will not order for further 150 kgs of covers which the complainant had done. The counsel for the opposite party sought for dismissal of compalaint on the sole ground that the product was not exmined by any expert to prove that it is defective. It is submitted that the complaint is a mere counter blast for the cheque case initiated by this opposite party which was later settled.
We perused the entire pleadings, documents and material object produced by both the parties. We are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the product supplied by the opposite party is a defective one. As correctly pointed out by the counsel for the opposite party the complainant failed to produce the particulars about on which date the order was made and out of how much ordered received the alleged 100kgs covers were found defective. Further if the opposite party has failed to get back the defective covers and make the loss good, the complainant as a prudent man ought to have avoided further orders to the opposite party, whereas in the present case the complainant had further ordered 150kgs to the opposite party. The explanation given by the complainant that in the hope that the opposite party will exchange the 100kgs defective covers, he had ordered further 150kgs is not a plavsible explanation to be accepted. Nothing prevented the complainant in returning the defective covers to the opposite party also no particulars with regard to the payment for the defective cover was furnished by the complainant. No expert opinion on the defective covers was also sought by the complainant in proof of his allegations. Further for the defence by the opposite party that the covers could have got teared due to the chemicals added in the Masala products, the complainant has not come out with any reply. Thus we are of the view that the complaint allegations are baseless and no sufficient evidence is produced by the complainant in proof of his case.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th day of May 2022.
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 05.12.2016 Acknowledgement receipt. Xerox
Ex.A2 05.06.2017 Notice issued by the complainant to the op. Xerox
Ex.A3 29.06.2017 Reply notice issued by the op to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A4 ………….. Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A5 23.01.2017 Letter issued by the complainant to the op. Xerox
Ex.A6 27.01.2017 Delivery Run Chart. Xerox
Ex.A7 ……………. Damaged covers original
Ex.A8 …………… Photos original
Ex.A9 ………….. Covers supplied by Janaki printers to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A10 21.10.2017 Tax invoice issued by Janaki Printers. Xerox
Ex.A11 03.06.2015 Certificate of Registration. Xerox
Ex.A12 17.03.2016 License under food safety and standards act 2006. Xerox
Ex.A13 17.03.2016 Form C – License under food safety and standards act 2006. Xerox
Ex.A14 31.07.2018 License under food safety and standards act 2006 Xerox
Ex.A15 02.01.2018 Judgment passed in S.T.C. No.159/2017. Xerox
List of documents filed by the oppostie party:-
Ex.B1 ............. Tax-Invoices issued by Sun Park Food Processors. Xerox
Ex.B2 ................ Tax-Invoices issued by D.S. Malala. Xerox
Ex.B3 .............. Tax-Invoices issued by Rani Malala. Xerox
Ex.B4 .............. Tax-Invoices issued by Nayagi masala. Xerox
Ex.B5 .............. Packing covers supplied by Sun Park Food Processors. original
Ex.B6 .............. Packing covers supplied by Rani Masala. original
Ex.B7 ............. Packing covers supplied by D.S. Masala. original
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
