IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 99/2021 (filed on 02-07-2021)
Petitioner : Pranav N.T.
Bindu Engineering Works,
Kottayam.
Communication address
Naduvileparambil (H),
Villoonni P.O.
Arppookara – 686008.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Proprietor,
Pinaka Trade Ventures,
Puzhayannur P.O.
Thrissur – 680587.
2) Vipinlal,
Pinaka Trade Ventures,
Puzhayannoor P.O.
Thrissur – 680587.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
This complaint is filed as per Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant is running an engineering shop for his livelihood. For protecting his workshop and tools he advanced the payment of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party for purchasing a roofing sheet. The opposite party was introduced to the complainant through the online site India mart. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/-as advance to the opposite party through bank transfer on an assurance of delivering the roofing sheet on 25-03-2021. But an enquiry over phone on 26-03-2021, the opposite party replied that he would deliver the sheets on 27-03-2021 at Kottayam and demanded to pay the balance amount of Rs.17,750/-. The complainant had to pay that amount also through his bank. But not only he did not get the roofing sheet delivered but whenever he enquired the opposite party postponed the delivery for no reason. The complainant approached Gandhinagar Police Station and lodged a complaint on 03-04-2021. On 05-04-2021 the opposite party assured before the Police to return the amount he received. But again the opposite party did not keep his word. As his tools were blocked in the worksite he had lost his livelihood and the average daily income of Rs.2,000/-. Thereafter on 13-04-2021 the complainant again complained to the SP office, Kottayam and the Kottayam Cyber Cell contacted the opposite party and he assured to give a cheque for the amount. In the meanwhile, the complainant became completely out of income and he had to borrow money from others to complete the work. On 09-06-2021 the opposite party gave a cheque dated 23-06-2021 for Rs.27,750/-. But on presentation the said cheque was dishonoured for funds insufficient. As he had no other way, he had to sell his one and only vehicle which he had been using for running his business, Mahindra Maxico for Rs.99,000/- for clearing his debts. The complainant had become income less and indebted because of the unfair trade practice of the opposite party which is to be compensated and hence the complaint is filed.
Though notice was served to the opposite parties, they did not appear before the Commission and hence set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit along with Exts.A1 to A6 towards the evidence.
We having considered all the documents and pleadings are inclined to frame the following issues as:
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the act of the opposite party caused any damage to the complainant and if so what are the reliefs he is entitled?
Point No.1
- The opposite party has opted for not appearing before us and defend his case where as the complainant has produced the documents of the alleged transactions. The complainant has pleaded that he had approached the opposite party for buying roofing sheets is order to protect his business which was his only livelihood.
- Ext.A1 is the quotation given by the opposite parties to the complainant on 18-03-2021 quoting the rate of JSW steel PPGL Curve sheet 14ft..60mm thick as Rs.27,746.46 for 9 numbers. As per Ext.A2, the complainant has paid Rs.27,750/- to the opposite party. Ext.A6 is the cheque issued by the opposite party to the complainant and the dishonour memo. The cheque was dishonoured as funds insufficient. So the complainant has successfully proved the transaction between the complainant and the opposite party and that he is a consumer. Now, as it is evident that the opposite party has received the consideration, the point to be considered is whether he has acted accordingly? Being a dealer of some goods, he was bound to supply the goods properly on proper time. But the opposite party evaded from delivering the roofing sheets to the complainant as agreed causing financial loss to the complainant. Even after that the opposite party was not ready to repay the amount for consideration which he received from the complainant. The non-delivery of the roofing sheets and non-returning of the money are found unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party. In the absence of contrary evidence we find that the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice causing damages to the complainant both financially and mentally.
Point No.2
As the roofing sheets were not made available to him, the complainant was put to lots of hardships. We find that as the complainant has lost his livelihood of Rs.2,000/- daily
Based on the above findings, we are inclined to allow the complaint vide the following Order.
- The opposite party shall give Rs.27,750/- to the complainant with 9% interest from 27-03-21 till the realization.
- The opposite party shall give Rs.20,000/- towards compensation.
- The opposite party shall give Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of October, 2021.
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant.
A1 – Copy of quotation dtd.18-03-21 by 1st opposite party to petitioner
A2 – Copy of bank statement for the period of 14-03-21 to 13-04-21
A3 – Copy of bank statement for the period of 01-06-21 to 01-07-21
A4 – Receipt of petition no.27559/2021/K dtd.13-04-21 from District Police
Station, Kottayam.
A5 – Agreement dtd.30-06-2021 between the complainant and V.A. Lalan
A6 – Cheque dtd.23-06-2021 for Rs.27,750/- from South Indian Bank
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
