BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 40 / 2005 WEDNESDAY THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2011 A. Raman, S/o. Amarajulu, Yadavar Street, Panamadangi, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore Taluk, Vellore District. … Complainant. -Vs – M/s. Sri. Venkateswara Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor, S. Siva Kumar, No.224 Vellore Road, Dharapadavedu, Katpadi 632 007. … Opposite party. . . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 18.5.2011, in the presence of Thiru. T.M.Sivakumar, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. M. Kulothangan, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is practicing as an Advocate at Vellore. The opposite party is running a hardware shop in the name and style of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders and he is dealing with plywood, glass, hardware, paints and fancy fitting etc. in the above mentioned address. The complainant herein purchased various hardware materials from the opposite party on 11.9.04 for a sum of Rs.1,170/- for the same the opposite party had issued a bill. He purchased to 10 Inch “ARIDHANDA” (1 No.) for a sum of Rs.390/- for the same the opposite party had promised that the same is made up of brass and the life time is longer. Believing the representation made by opposite party the complainant paid higher price for the said Aridhanda. But the Aridhanda purchased from the opposite party is defective one and it is not functioning, the same is not made up of brass. He made several attempts to replace the said defective Aridhanda by a original new one. But the opposite party under some false pretext dragged to replace the same with any rhyme or reason. The above said attitude of the opposite party reveals that he had committed great deficiency in service, cheating, fraud and their caused great mental agony to the complainant. The complainant had sent a lawyer notice dt. 5.1.05 in order to replace the said defective Aridhanda the same has been received by the opposite party and he neither replaced the defective material nor issued any reply. Even though after issuance of the legal notice the complainant had given an opportunity to replace the defective piece and fulfill the demand. Subsequently the complainant had issued another legal notice dt. 2.5.05 the same has been received by the opposite party, but he failed to replace the said Aridhanda or issue a reply notice. The complainant pray this Forum for directing the opposite party to supply a new good in replacement of the defective goods supplied to the complainant and to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as a compensation towards the deficiency in service, mental agony and physical distress incurred to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the cost of this complaint. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party are as follows: The opposite party does not admit any of the averments made in the complaint by the complainant save and except those that are specifically admitted herein and as regards the rests puts the complainant to strict proof of them all. It is true that the opposite party is running hardware shop in the name and style of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders and he is dealing with plywood, glass hard ware, paints and fancy fittings etc.. It is also true that the complainant had purchased various hardware materials from this opposite party on 11.9.04 for a sum of Rs.1170/- for the same the opposite party had also issued a bill. The complainant purchased 10 inch Aridhanda (1 No.) for a sum of Rs.390/-. But it is false to allege that the opposite party had promised that the same is made up of brass and the life time is longer, and the complainant is put to strict proof of the said allegation. The opposite party further deny the allegations that believing the representation made by the opposite party the complainant paid higher price for the said aridhanda and that the said aridhanda is defective and not functioning and the same is made up of brass are all, false vexatious and only invented for the purpose of this case. The opposite party denies the allegations that the complainant made several attempts to replace the said defective aridhanda by a original new one and that the opposite party under some false pretext to replace the same with any rhyme or reason, are all false, vexatious and invented only for the purpose of this false case. At the time of purchase, the complainant had requested the opposite party to show various types of aridhandas in fancy type and after thorough checkup only he chossed the alleged defective type or aridhanda. The price of the said aridhanda is correct one and the same is available only at that rate in the market. After purchase of the said aridhanda, the complainant had stated that the said aridhanda is not functioning properly. Even at that time also the opposite party is ready and willing to replace the alleged defective aridhanda and asked the complainant to bring the said alleged defective aridhanda for replacement. Without bringing the said aridhanda for replacement to the opposite party the complainant caused to issue of registered lawyer’s notice to the opposite party, and initiated unnecessary proceedings, against the opposite party. Even now, the opposite party is ready to replace the said alleged defective aridhanda purchased by the complainant. The opposite party is not a manufacturer of the said aridhanda and he is a retail vendor of the said aridhanda. The complainant had not impleaded the original manufacturer of the said aridhanda in the above proceedings as party. Hence on this short ground alone, the above complaint is liable to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party a non-joinder of necessary party. The opposite party reserves his right to file an additional counter as and when necessity arises. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in his complaint. There is no a merit or bonafide in the above complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party. 3. Now the points for consideration are: (a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties? (b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 4. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked on the side of the complainant and no documents were marked on the side of the opposite party. Proof affidavit of the complainant filed. Proof affidavit of the opposite party not filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 5. POINT NO. (a): It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite party is running a hard ware shop in the name and style of M/s. Sri. Venkateswara Traders and he is dealing with plywood glass, hardware, paints and fancy fitting etc. The complainant had purchased various hardware materials from the opposite party on 11.9.04 for a sum of Rs.1,170/- for the same the opposite party had issued a bill Ex.A1. The complainant had also purchased 10 inch “ARIDHANDA” (1 No.) for a sum of Rs.390/- for the opposite party in the above said date. 6. The complainant contended that at the time of purchase the said 10 inch ARIDHANDA, the opposite party had promised that the same is made up of brass and the life time is longer. Believing the representation made by opposite party, the complainant paid higher price for the said Aridhanda. But the Aridhanda is defective one and it is not function, the same is not made up of brass. The complainant made several attempts to replace the said defective Aridhanda by a original new one, but the opposite party dragged to replace the same. The said attitude of the opposite party reveals that he had committed great deficiency in service and caused great mental agony to the complainant. 7. The opposite party contended that at the time of purchase, the complainant had requested the opposite party to show various types of Aridhanda in fancy type and after thorough checkup only he chose the alleged defective type Aridhanda. The price of the said Aridhanda is correct one and the same is available only at that rate in the market. Further, at the time of purchase of the said Aridhanda, the opposite party has not promised that the same is made up of brass and its life time is longer. The opposite party is not a manufacturer of the said Aridhanda and he is a retail vendor of the said Aridhanda. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. 8. It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased 17 items of hard wares including the alleged defective 10 inch Aridhanda (1 No.) from the opposite party on 11.9.04 for a sum of Rs.1170/- for the same the opposite party had issued a bill Ex.A1. From the perusal of Ex.A1 it is seen that the cost of 10 inch Aridhanda (1 No.) is Rs.390/-. The complainant stated in his proof affidavit that the opposite party had promised that the 10 inch Aridhanda is made up of brass and the life time is longer. Believing the representation made by opposite party, the complainant paid higher price for the said Aridhanda. The contention of the opposite party that at the time of purchasing the Aridhanda the opposite party has not made any promise about the made up of brass and the life of Aridhanda. In the Ex.A1 bill, it is mentioned only cost and measurement i.e. 10 inch Aridhanda (1.No) is Rs.390/- The complainant further contended that the said Aridhanda is defective and not functioning properly but the complainant has not proved the above contention through technical expert or documents before this Forum. 9. According to the complainant he made several attempts to replace the said defective Aridhanda by a original new one but the opposite party dragged to replace the same with any reason. The opposite party stated in his counter that even now the opposite party is ready to replace the said alleged defective Aridhanda purchased by the complainant, but the complainant without bring the said Aridhanda to the opposite party for replacing another one, he caused to issue legal notice to the opposite party and initiated unnecessary proceedings against the opposite party. Therefore it is clear that the opposite party is always ready to replace the alleged 10 inch Aridhanda by new one, but the complainant did not brought the Aridhanda for replacing to the opposite party. 10. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the complainant, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A3 we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 11. POINT NO : (b ) In view of our findings on points (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 8th day of June 2011. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 11.9.04 - Receipt issued by the opposite party. Ex.A2- 2.5.05 - X-copy of lawyer notice. Ex.A3- 26.5.05 - Postal Ack. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: .. Nil .. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
