DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 16^th  day of  February 2017

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                 Date of filing: 11/03/2016

               : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

                                                      (C.C.No.37/2016)         

Jayaprakash.T

S/o.Parangodan (Late)

Kuruppath Veedu,
Pazhaya Panchayath,

Puduppariyaram, Palakkad                              -       Complainant

(By Party in person)

V/s

1. Proprietor,

    B1-Tech Technologies

    MP Road, Calicut

2.Secretary

   Lensefed

   Palakkad District  Committee,

   Near Rappadi, Civil Station (PO),

   Palakkad                                                    -        Opposite parties

(By Adv.Jayachandran.G)

O R D E R

By Shri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

Brief facts of complaint.

The complainant in May 2015 booked a cooler in the stall of 1^st opposite party by paying an advance amount of Rs.300/- in the exhibition conducted by 2^nd opposite party for domestic appliances. The condition is that cooler will be delivered at house within 3 months and the balance amount of Rs.3,650/- should be paid at that time. The reason for the complaint is that after the expiry of 6 months cooler was not delivered and reason for delay in delivery was not informed to the complainant. Because of the trust in 2^nd opposite party the complainant went to see the exhibition and booked the cooler. When there was delay in getting cooler the complainant contacted the lensefed Secretary (2^nd opposite party) who replied that records of stalls in the exhibition were not maintained. Later on when a registered letter was sent to 2^nd opposite party, in his reply he stated that about the institutions which conducted stalls, no previous acquaintance, relation and dealings were not there and for the establishment of 1^st opposite party no stall was there. Then a registered notice was sent to 1^st opposite party, notice was returned with remarks “not known beet No.9”. When contacted on the telephone number mentioned in the bill it was known to the complainant  that the phone number is that of a woman and no relation with the said institution (OP1). The complainant visited the said stall of 1^st opposite party along with his friends. Complainant incurred expenditure of advance amount, various expenses, litigation expenses and loss of prestige for Rs.16,600/-.

On the basis of the above, it is prayed by the complainant to the Hon’ble Forum that in this case by examining the opposite parties and witnesses, a settlement may be arrived at.

The complaint was admitted  and notice was issued to opposite parties. In their version filed by 2^nd opposite party, they contend that lensefed has conducted a Build Expo in 2015. On 16/12/2015 the letter sent by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party was received and to this letter 2^nd opposite party gave a clear reply that opposite party was not liable for any amount mentioned in the complaint. This opposite party did not receive any amount from the complainant. The complainant is not the consumer of this opposite  party and the consumer of 1^st opposite party only. There is no relation between 2^nd opposite party and 1^st opposite party. Further 2^nd opposite party contends that 1^st opposite party did not run a stall and perform trading  in the exhibition conducted by 2^nd opposite party. Hence, no previous experience and no dealings  opposite party has with 1^st opposite party. For the lapse or liability on the part of 1^st opposite party, 2^nd opposite party is not at all liable. Hence, according to 2^nd opposite party, in the complaint filed by the complainant  opposite party No.2 is  not a necessary party.

Complainant filed chief affidavit. From the side of the complainant Ext.A1 to A3 were marked. 2^nd opposite party also filed chief affidavits and also filed IA 406/2016 seeking permission to cross examine  the complainant. It was allowed and complainant was cross examined as PW1. Paper publication against 1^st opposite party was produced; their name called absent and was set exparte. From the side of opposite parties no documents were produced and marked.

The following issues are considered in this case.

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of  opposite parties ?

2.If so, what is the relief?

Issues 1 & 2 

In this case the main issue of the complainant is that even after the expiry of 6 months the cooler booked by the complainant in May 2015 asper Ext.A1 in the stall of 1^st opposite party in the exhibition conducted by 2^nd opposite party after paying an advance of Rs.300/-, was not delivered to the complainant and  reason for delay in delivery was not informed to him. The complainant also contacted the 2^nd opposite party by a letter marked as Ext.A2 to which 2^nd opposite party did not give him a positive reply.  Then a registered notice was sent to 1^st opposite party which was returned with remarks “not known beet no.9” as per Ext.A3. In the version filed by 2^nd opposite party, 2^nd opposite party admitted having conducted “Build Expo” in 2015 but did not admit the liability on their part because  they argued that  complainant is not their customer but customer of 1^st opposite party.  Further there is no relation between opposite parties No.1 & 2. They also state that 1^st opposite party did not run a stall and conduct trading in the Build Expo organized by them. Hence they contend that 2^nd opposite party is not a necessary party in this case. 

In the light of the above we observe that 2^nd opposite party cannot escape  from their liability  in this case because they are the chief organizers of this exhibition which they admit. Hence, they are expected to maintain all the records  of various stalls and participants in the exhibition. For any deficiency of service and / or unfair trade practice on the part of any stall organizer or participant the ultimate liability falls only on the 2^nd opposite party as the chief organiser.

Hence the complaint is allowed.

Therefore we order opposite parties 1 & 2 to be jointly and severally liable to refund the advance amount of Rs.300/-(Rupees Three hundred only) to the complainant, collected from him at the time of booking of the cooler with 1^st opposite  party in the Building Expo 2015 organized by the 2^nd opposite party, to pay to the complainant  Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only)  as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant due to non delivery of the cooler booked and also to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to him towards litigation expenses incurred by him.

Order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise interest @9% per annum on the total amount due should also be paid to the complainant from the date of this order, till realization.

      Pronounced in the open court on this the 16^th day of  February  2017.

                                                                                               Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President     

                         Sd/-   

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

                         Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                 Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 –  Photocopy of bill issued by Bi-Tech Technologies dated 23/5/15

Ext.A2  - Photocopy of letter sent by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party dtd.16/12/2015

Ext.A3 - Photocopy of notice  sent by the complainant to 1^st opposite party dtd. 23/2/2016

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – Jayaprakash

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

 Nil

Cost    

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of proceedings.