Date of Filing : 16.04.2012
Date of Order : 30.06.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 30th JUNE 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
CC No. 49 / 2012
Sri. Raghunatha Babu.N.V.,
Propl. M/s. Gayathri Ads, Creative Auto Ads
Pole Ads & Out Door Ads, Office at No. M-6,
Industrial Area, Near Clock Tower,
Kolar – 563 101. ……. Complainant
V/s.
The Secretary,
Gupta Educational Trust (R),
No. 868, 100 Feet Road, BSK 3rd Stage,
Bangalore – 560 085.
(By Sri. A. Lakshmi Narayana, Adv.) …… Opposite Party
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complaint u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to OP to pay Rs.73,960/- are necessary:-
OP placed an Order for displaying of printing, mounting of flex design boards in 7 locations and issued contract letter on 25.10.2010 and the agreed rate was Rs.8/- per Sq.ft. between 15.11.2010 & 15.06.2011. Accordingly, Complainant at the Hot Places viz., Kolar KSRTC Bus Stand Flex, Court Circle, Bangarpet Circle, Bangarpet Entrance, KGF Five Lights, Mulabagal Tirupathi Road & Malur Entrance, has exhibited the Boards of different dimensions for a total period of 7 months and he is entitled to Rs.1,48,960/- from the OP and claimed it from the OP. OP paid only Rs.1,00,000/- and did not pay the balance of Rs.48,960/- till date. Hence, the Complainant suffered damages and mental agony. Hence, the Complaint.
2. In brief the version of OP are:-
Complainant approached the employee of the OP by name Smt. Punitha in the College premises at Kolar and after negotiation it was agreed to advertise the OP’s Institution name at different places in Kolar District as stated in the Complaint. Complainant has not displayed the advertisement Flexes at KSRTC Bus Stand as agreed by him i.e., 30’x25’size. But he has displayed only 20’ x 10’ advertisement Flexes at Kolar KSRTC Bus Stand. This fact came to the knowledge of the OP when they inspected along with the Complainant and it is well within the knowledge of the Complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Complainant. Complainant has not at all displayed advertisement Flex at Mulbagal & Malur Towns as agreed by him. In spite of that he claimed the amount. Complainant should have displayed the advertisement Flexes at Bangarpet Circle, Kolar, for a period of 7 months. But, he had displayed only for one month. OP requested the Complainant regarding this deficiency in service. But, he carelessly said that these Flexes were removed due to widening of roads at Mulbagal & Malur which is untruth, as a matter of fact, he has not displayed the Flex Boards. Complainant had received excess amount and on 25.10.2010 these were brought to the notice of the Complainant. All the transactions took place at Kolar. Complainant strangely issued notice to the Bangalore address of OP and not at Kolar address. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, both parties have filed Memo stating that pleadings and documents be read as their evidence. Arguments were heard.
4. Points that arise for our consideration are:
POINTS
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
5. Our answers for the above points are as under:
(A) Negative
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record, it is an admitted fact that between 15.11.2010 & 15.06.2011 OP availed services of the Complainant for advertising & putting Flex Boards of different sizes at 7 places in Kolar District to be exhibited for 7 continuous months at the rate of Rs.8/- per Sq.ft. In this regard, OP has paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant. Complainant claimed that he has exhibited the Flex Boards at 7 places as agreed, but OP denies it.
7. Anyway, whether the Complainant has exhibited these things at different places as agreed is not at all established. The statement of the OP that these are not exhibited cannot be disbelieved at all.
8. In an event, Sec. 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act defines who is a consumer. Consumer is a person who purchases goods or services for consideration and trader as defined u/s. 2 (1)(r) of C.P. Act which defines that a person who sells goods or services for consideration. Reading these two, it means person who purchases goods or services is a consumer. In this case, it is the OP who has purchased the services from the Complainant for consideration and the Complainant in this sense a Trader. Hence, this Forum cannot entertain the dispute of the Complainant. If at all the Complaint had to be made, it is only by the OP and not by the Complainant. Hence, as the Complainant is not a consumer, we have to dismiss the Complaint.
9. If the Complainant had done the work and OP has not paid the money, the remedy for the Complainant is to approach Civil Court for which this Order will not come in the way. Hence, we hold the points accordingly and pass the following order;
ORDER
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
3. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th of June 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
