BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.57/2009

Between

Complainant : Abdul Kareem,

Thelliyil House,

Balagram P.O,

Karunapuram Village,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: V.M.Joymon)

And

Opposite Party : P.G.Mohanan,

Manager,

Highrange Scales,

Pezhumkavala,

12/61-A, Kattappana P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: Jose Thomas & Babichen.V.George)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

On 5.12.2008 the opposite party approached at the chicken shop of the complainant at Thookkupalam and introduced himself as a distributor of electronic weighing balance. The complainant gave an order for 30 Kilo electronic weighing balance with metal cover to the opposite party and paid an advance of Rs.500/- for the same. The opposite party assured to supply the weighing balance on or before 20.12.2008. But the opposite party never supplied the weighing balance to the complainant on the prescribed date. So the complainant several times contacted him through telephone. The opposite party deliberately avoided the complainant. So on 20.01.2009, the complainant purchased another weighing balance from Eerattupetta and this caused severe loss to him. The petitioner constrained to send a lawyer notice on 31.01.2009 and it was replied by the opposite party stating false stories. So the petition is filed for getting back the advance amount paid by the complainant and also for compensation for the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party.
 

2. The opposite party filed a written version and it is admitted that the complainant booked for an electronic weighing balance with a capacity of 30 Kgms on 5.12.2008, and paid an advance of Rs.500/-. The balance amount was Rs.6,500/-. Installments were also allowed to the complainant. The expected date of delivery was 20.12.2008. On 12.12.2008 the complainant informed the opposite party that a box type balance will be more beneficial to the complainant. The complainant never purchased any balance from Eerattupetta. Mr.V.G.Rajan, a staff of High Range Scales company approached the complainant to return Rs.500/- received by the opposite party as advance. But the complainant ridiculed the staff V.G.Rajan with abuse words and hesitated to receive the advance money, challenged that he will get it solved only at Court. The complainant asked installments for the used box type balance while the box type balance was taken to his chicken shop. The staff of the High Range Scales company as well as the Manager of the company conveyed the complainant that they were not in a condition to extent of installment facility to the complainant. Aggrieved with this, the complainant adopted rough and tough methods and started crossing the boundary of decency. The opposite party even gave a written complaint against the complainant to the Secretary, Merchant Association, Pattom Colony on 17.01.2008. So the petition is filed only for harassing the opposite party and may be dismissed.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and opposite party filed chief affidavit and Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite party.
 

5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting back the advance amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party for ordering an electronic weighing balance. The complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 paid Rs.500/- as advance to the opposite party for ordering an Arevy, weighing balance. Ext.P1 is the bill issued by the opposite party for the same. The balance amount was Rs.6,000/-, which was admitted by the opposite party. But the opposite party avoided the supply of weighing balance and the complainant purchased another weighing balance from Eerattupetta. As per cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, it is stated that the complainant purchased a second hand(used weighing balance) from Eerattupetta and so the bill is not produced. The opposite party never approached the complainant with the advance money. Ext.P2 is the lawyer notice issued by the complainant against the opposite party. The opposite party filed an affidavit and one document Ext.R1 which is a copy of the complaint given to the Secretary, Merchant Association against the complainant.
 

It is admitted by the opposite party that they have received Rs.500/-as advance from the complainant for the weighing balance. It is also admitted that they never supplied the same to the complainant. As per the opposite party, the complainant contacted the opposite party through telephone and asked for a used box type weighing balance. The opposite party was ready to supply the same but the complainant requested installment for the payment of the money. The opposite party denied the same. Complainant several times threatened the opposite party through telephone. The opposite party approached the complainant with the balance amount but the complainant was not ready to receive the same and he abused the opposite party. Ext.R1 states that the complainant several times threatened the opposite party because the opposite party never give installment facility for the payment of the balance amount. But there is no evidence to show that Ext.R1 complaint was filed by the opposite party. The complainant paid the advance Rs.500/- to the opposite party and the opposite party never supplied weighing balance to the complainant. It is an unfair trade practice and we think that the opposite party should give back the amount received from the complainant.
 

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to return the advance amount paid by the complainant as per Ext.P1, which is Rs.500/- within one month of receipt of this order. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.750/- to the complainant as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2009

                                Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

                                Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

                               Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - T.M.Abdul Kareem

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Bill dated 5.12.2008 for Rs.6,500/-

Ext.P2 - Lawyer Notice issued by the advocate of the complainant

Ext.P3 - Reply Notice dated 18.02.2009 issued by the advocate of the opposite party

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Photocopy of opposite party's complaint letter dated 17.01.2008

submitted before the Secretary, Merchant Association, Pattom Colony  against the complainant