KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.613/03 JUDGMENT DATED.24.03.08
PRESENT:- JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.Mathew Jacob, Madappattu House, Kanjirappara P.O., Kottayam
2. K.V.Sukumaran Nair, : APPELLANTS Kochukalapurayidom, Poothakuzhy.PO., Kottayam. (By Adv.Kavitha.D) Vs Shaju Augustin, Surabhi Supreme Marbles and Granites (P) Ltd., Padayattil Building, : RESPONDENT Near Surabhi Tourist Home, Angamali – 683572. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in OP.5/03 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint of the appellants stands dismissed. 2. The case of the complainants/appellants is that the second petitioner is supervising the construction of the house of the first petitioner and that for the purpose of construction marble slabs of the variety Toronto Slab PE 45D and 42 PS of 1007.861 square feet and 1420.965 square feet were ordered from the opposite party. The total amount of Rs.1,25,192.53/- including 14% sales tax and loading charges were paid on 22.10.02. The materials were despatched by the opposite party in two tracks on the same day. One of the trucks was intercepted by the Intelligence Inspector, Commercial Taxes, Kottayam at Pampady. The tax officials found that the quantity in the truck and the quantity mentioned in the bill does not tally. The opposite party informed the complainants to see that the additional amount of tax is paid and the truck released. Accordingly the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,955/- to the tax officers. It was assured that the amount will be returned by the opposite party. But when contacted the opposite party refused to reimburse the above amount. Hence the lawyer notice demanding the amount of Rs.12,455/- The notice was returned unclaimed. 3. The case of the opposite party is that he does not remember to have sold the articles to the petitioners. It is also denied that articles worth Rs.1,25,192.53/- inclusive of tax was despatched to the petitioners. He has also denied the checking of the truck by the Sales Tax Intelligence Squad. It is also denied that he had given any assurance that the amount will be reimbursed to the complainant. According to him it is the duty of the person who transport the goods to pay the tax. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of both sides and Exts.A1 to A6 and Exts.B1 and B2. 5. The Forum has dismissed the complaint mentioning that there is no objective evidence to prove the purchase of marble slabs by the complainants as no bill or invoice in this regard has been produced. 6. We find that the second petitioner has mentioned the details of the transactions in the proof affidavit filed. He has also produced Ext.A1 estimate which specifically mentions the price of the two varieties of marble slabs and the quantity and the purchase price, loading charges and sales tax at 14%. The total amount is the same as mentioned by the complainant. The complainant has also produced A2 the carbon copy of receipt issued by the tax authorities for a sum of Rs.10,955/-. Ext.A3 is the demand notice in this regard served by the tax authorities. Ext.A4 is the unclaimed cover in the address of the opposite party and Ext.A5 is the copy of the lawyer notice. Ext.A6 is the newspaper publication which contains the advertisement of the opposite parties that for those who purchase the marble slabs above Rs.1 lakh transport is free. 7. On the other hand, the opposite party has filed Ext. B1 and B2 photo copies of two bills wherein the purchase price is mentioned as Rs.31,334/- and Rs.30,614.87 respectively. According to the opposite party materials worth the above amounts only have been sold to the complainants. 8. We find that the case of the complainant appears to be credible in the light of the documents produced ie; Ext.A1 estimate; Ext.A2 receipt for payment of tax; Ext.A3 notice of the sales tax authorities and Ext.A4 and Ext.A5 the unclaimed cover and the copy of the lawyer notice. The newspaper publication although post dated to the date of the transaction is also a factor supporting the case of the complainant. It has also to be noted that the second complainant who filed the proof affidavit was not cross examined. Hence the case of the complainants stands unimpeached. The case of the opposite party is also not consistant. In the circumstances we are unable to agree with the findings of the Forum. The same is set aside. The complaint will stand allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,455/- with interest at 12% on Rs.10,955/- from date of complaint till realization and also cost of Rs.2500/-. The amounts shall be paid within two months from today failing which the amount will carry interest at 15% per annum on the principal amount. The appeal is allowed.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
R.AV | 
