A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HYDERABAD.
F. A 1483/2007 against C.C. 59/2007, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar
Between:
Sama Venugopal
S/o. Shankaraiah
Proprietor
M/s. Manikanta Kirana Shop
H.No. 5-7-100/1
APHB Colony, Karimnagar Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
And
Priya Milk & Mil Products Pvt. Ltd.
Indira Nagar, Thimmapur
Karimnagar Dist.
Rep. by its Person-in-charge. *** Respondent/
Op.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. M. Ramgopal Reddy
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. D. Srinivasa Rao.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THIS THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the Dist. Forum rejecting a part of the claim.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he was an unemployed youth. To eke out his livelihood he approached the respondent a dealer in milk products. He was advised to deposit Rs. 40,000/- as security for supply of milk for the purpose of sale. Accordingly, he deposited the amount by borrowing money from friends and relatives, and on that he was appointed as distributor for supply of milk in the area. He started supplying the milk from 6.11.2006. He and his family members used to do milk business by selling these sachets and it was only the source of his livelihood. While so, the respondent stopped the supply of milk from 20.12.2006 without any notice or intimation. Due to sudden stoppage, the purchasers who were receiving milk daily stopped making payments as such he had sustained loss. The respondent neither refunded the deposit nor paid the amount. Thereupon he gave a notice on 6.3.2007 for which the respondent did not even give reply. Therefore, he filed the complaint claiming refund of Rs. 40,000/- paid by him, Rs. 6,000/- per month towards loss of income, Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and costs.
3) The respondent resisted the case. It alleged that the transaction between them was for a commercial purpose and therefore excluded from the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. The complainant was appointed as distributor to sell the milk and milk products by adding some profit. He had deposited Rs. 40,000/- towards interest free deposit and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions. He was appointed only for one year from 5.11.2006. He had to sell at Rs. 14.10 per litre for toned milk and Rs. 13.10 per litre for double toned milk. In fact he had supplied 540 litres of milk on 23.12.2006 as ordered by him for which the complainant had paid Rs. 7,530/- on 24.12.2006. However, he stopped placing orders and even evaded to meet him or contact him over phone, and he had taken the dealership of other milk products. For the notice he has given correct reply by stating that he had sustained loss of Rs. 15,000/- as the complainant did not receive the milk for three consecutive days. The said letter was returned un-served. He never resorted to any illegal activities causing loss to the complainant. Therefore he prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A8 marked while the respondent filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. B1 to B7 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- with the respondent which in turn gave distribution rights to the complainant to sell the milk on its behalf and make profit. Though the Dist. Forum did not accept the contention of the respondent that he had sustained a loss of Rs. 15,000/- when the complainant refused to take the milk, however for obscure reasons it had awarded Rs. 30,000/- by stating “in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case.”
6) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective. The Dist. Forum having held that he had deposited Rs. 40,000/- it could have awarded refund of Rs. 40,000/- together with interest besides loss of income @ Rs. 6,000/- per month and compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant an unemployed youth in order to eke out his livelihood approached the respondent which deals in milk business and milk products. The respondent accordingly gave dealership to him after taking deposit of Rs. 40,000/- evidenced under receipt Exs. A1 & A2. It is not the case of the respondent even that it was a non-refundable deposit. The complainant in the first instance by his letter Ex. A4 Dt. 6.3.2007 complained that the respondent had stopped supplying the milk suddenly from 21.12.2006 without intimation, and for no valid reasons. Therefore he sought reasons for its discontinuation of milk supply. The respondent controverted the said fact by alleging that it had supplied the milk till 23.12.2006. Since it had no information from the complainant nor intimated its requirement of milk it could not supply. It alleged that “as per the terms and conditions you have agreed to purchase milk from us on that basis to ensure regular supply to you have made arrangements to procure the milk from various sources to process and supply the same to you as per your order for one year. In the absence of placing the indent by you the processed milk worth Rs. 15,000/- was spoiled and loss of goodwill of the company due to non-supply of milk in the market. The loss will be Rs. 5,000/- for non-supply of milk in the regular market.” Neither of the parties had filed the agreement executed between them. Therefore there was no proof even that it had procured the milk worth Rs. 15,000/- in order to supply to the complainant and thereby sustained loss. Finally it has mentioned “Hence, there is no question of breach of contract from our side. Rather it is you – have breached even though we will return your deposit after deduction of our loss amount of Rs. 20,000/-.”
9) When the respondent could not prove these facts or loss that was sustained it cannot be allowed to contend that it had deducted an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. It had to prove by way of documents that it had procured the milk and due to non-receipt of milk it had sustained loss of Rs. 15,000. /. The reply that was given to the notice issued by the complainant, was addressed to “Sri Sama Venu, Sri Manikanta Distributors, and H.No. 5-7-1022/1, A.P.H.B. Colony, Karimnagar”, It was sent by registered post with acknowledgement was returned on the ground that there was no such person. There was omission of suffix Gopal in the name. Whatever be the reason, the fact remains that the complainant had paid Rs. 40,000/- towards deposit. Since the respondent itself admits that it had stopped supplying the milk and it had discontinued the business with him, it had to refund Rs. 40,000/- which was deposited by the complainant.
10) The opposite party did not prove that it had supplied the milk on 23.12.2006. When the respondent had all through kept the deposit with it , which did not carry any interest, had the advantage of the amount. For whatever the milk supplied by the respondent, the complainant had paid the amount . Necessarily the complainant/appellant is entitled to the said amount. He is equally entitled to interest from the date of discontinuation. Therefore the denial of Rs. 10,000/- besides interest is unjust.
11) In the result the appeal is allowed in part. Consequently the complaint is allowed in part directing the respondent to pay balance of Rs. 10,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a., from 23.12.2006 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 02. 03. 2010.
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
