BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 16/02/2009
Date of Order : 23/03/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 93/2009
Between
Hyderali. M., | :: | Complainant |
S/o. Kunji Muhammod, Moothedath House, Akaladu. P.O., Pin – 580 518, Chavakkad, Via., Thrissur District. |
| (By party-in-person) |
And
Siby Thomas, | :: | Opposite Party |
(Muvatho Traders), 25, 2nd Floor, Adam Bazar, Ankamaly, Ernakulam. |
| (By Adv. P.J. Paulochan Puthupara & Associates, Opp. Seemas Textiles, Adam Bazar Shopping Complex, Angamaly. P.O., Pin – 683 572) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :
On 05-07-2007, the complainant entrusted Rs. 32,520/- with the opposite party towards the price of house hold articles. The opposite party agreed to send the house hold articles through parcel service. However, the complainant had received house hold articles worth Rs. 29, 680/- only. Though the opposite party assured to send the remaining products, he failed to do so. Again on 06-07-2008, the complainant paid Rs. 7,840/- to the opposite party and directed him to forward household articles for a total amount of Rs. 10,680/- including the previous dues. In spite of repeated requests, the opposite party did not send the same as agreed. The complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 10,680/- together with Rs. 4,000/- which he had to spend by way of incidental expenses. This complaint hence.
2. The contention of the opposite party :
This complaint is maintainable in this Forum. Since the opposite party had purchased the household articles for resale at Chavakkad. The opposite party had delivered the goods by hand to the complainant after receiving the price. The complainant requested the opposite party to issue bogus bills to evade payment of tax to which the opposite party did not agree. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the complainant.
4. The points that came up for consideration are :-
Whether the complaint is maintainable in this Forum?
Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 14,680/- to the complainant?
5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the various house hold articles mentioned in Exts. A1 to A5 from the opposite party a whole sale dealer for the purpose of resale. So, the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer as defined in Section 2 (1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. The contention of the opposite party that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint is sustainable in law necessarily, since the consumer herein is does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Thereafter, we are only to decline the prayer. The complainant is free to approach the appropriate authority, if so advised.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 23rd day of March 2012
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the delivery chalan dt. 26-07-2008 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the tax invoice dt. 06-02-2008 |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of the tax invoice dt. 09-10-2007 |
“ A4 | :: | Copy of the tax invoice dt. 10-11-2007 |
“ A5 | :: | Copy of the payment receipt for Rs. 32,500/- |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
