CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 16th day of March 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 16/02/2016
: SMT. SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI. V.P. ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/20/2016
Omana
W/o. Sreedharan, Koottupura House,
Muthukunni, Ayalur Post,
Nemmara 678 510
Palakkad . : Complainant
(By Adv. Dhanjayan )
Vs
Sasidharan. M
Late Vishnudasan Nair Alias
Mani Nair, Stamp, Vendor, Court Road
Alathur Post. 678 541
Palakkad. : Opposite party
(By Adv. K.Vijaya)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma K.P.Member
The case of the complainant is that she has purchased two stamp papers Worth Rs. 500/- each totaling Rs.1,000/- for transaction purpose on 28/08/2014 from the opposite party who is a licensed stamp vendor at Alathur Taluk. But due to some unforeseen reasons the complainant could not use those stamp papers and hence he had approached the opposite party to get the refund of the unused stamp papers and that the complainant has entrusted the
said stamp papers to the opposite party on 30/8/2014 on the assurance given by the opposite party that he will get the stamp paper refunded and that he has taken Rs. 150/- towards the service charges. One Mr. Moosa had intervened in the affairs with in the complainant and opposite party . After handling over of the stamp paper to the opposite party when there was no response till October 2015, the complainant asked for the value of the stamp papers and that instead paying the amount, the opposite party has returned the stamp papers and scolded her with impolite words and has not returned the sum of Rs.150/- taken as service charge and that opposite party has committed the deficiency in service. Subsequently the complainant has caused to send a notice on 7/10/15 demanding return of Rs.1000/- and Rs. 150/- along with Rs. 250/- as cost of notice from the opposite party to which the opposite party has send a reply notice. Hence the complainant is entitled to cost of the stamp paper along with compensation Rs. 6000/-
The opposite party entered appearance upon the notice from the Forum and filed version contenting the following.
- According to the opposite party the complainant has purchased stamp papers from the opposite party. After purchase of the stamp paper neither the complainant nor the opposite party has approached the opposite party for refund of unused stamp papers. The opposite party is a licensed stamp paper vendor from decades together and his duty is only to sell stamp papers. The opposite party is in no way connected in refunding the stamp papers of any allied process. And hence this opposite party has not taken any amount from the complainant as consideration nor has taken in the stamp papers as alleged from the complainant for any type of refund and hence this opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as alleged .
Chief affidavit was filed by the complainant and Ext. A1 to Ext. A3 series was marked on the side of complainant.
Opposite party also filed chief affidavit no documents was marked from the side of opposite party .
Opposite party had filed application seeking permission of the Forum to cross examine the complainant and same was allowed by Forum . But in spite of several opportunity the complainant did not appear before the forum. Hence evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues that arises for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?
Issue No. 1
Here the complainant has purchase the stamp papers from the opposite party is an admitted fact. But opposite party submits that the fact that complainant has not use stamp papers was not known to him only when he received the legal notice from the complainant. As a stamp vendor his role is only to sell the stamp papers. He can never apply or process to get the refund of unused stamp papers. As per law it is the party himself who has to prefer an application before the Tahsildar and swear an affidavit before a notary public stating the reason for it being unused and after forwarding the same to the
concern V.O by the Tahsildar and on report of the V.O, the value of the stamp papers will be refund reducing 6% from the total stamp amount. The opposite party is in no way concerned with the resent of stamp paper. The opposite party has filed an application seeking permission the cross examine the complainant. But complainant did not appear before the forum. Hence an adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant. The payment consideration of Rs.150/- towards service charges was also denied the opposite party and complainant has failed to say when and where the amount was advanced. The complainant and affidavit is silent on that aspect . To prove the deficiency of service as per section 2(d) of the consumer Protection Act the, complainant has to prove primafacie that a service was rendered by the other party. No such contentions were proved by the complainant. In the above circumstances the case of the complainant cannot be believed. Hence we are of the view that complainant has failed to prove the allegations alleged in the complaint and hence complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court on 16th March 2017.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
Sd/-
Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayan
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 Series - Non judicial Stamp Papers (2 in Nos.) Worth Rs. 500/- each purchased from Opposite party bearing No. D 447245 and 447246 dated 28/08/2014.
Ext.A2 Series - Lower notice sent to opposite party along with Postal Receipt Dated 7/10/2015.
Ext.A3- Reply notice received from opposite party through counsel dated 09/10/2015
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
No cost.
