DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; BHADRAK

…………………

C.D.Case No.104 of 2014

Sri Brundaban @ Bunu Nayak, aged about 31 years

S/o: Gayadhar Nayak

At/PO: Sanakrushnapur, PS: Naikanidihi,

Dist:Bhadrak

                                                      ………………………Complainant

                      (Vrs.)

1.         Somanath Mahakud, aged about 40 years

            S/o: Bhikari Mahakud

            At: Apartipur, PO:Matipaka,

            PS:Naikanidihi, Dist:Bhadrak​

2.         Sri Sanjaya Mahakud, aged about 38 years

            S/o: Bhikari Mahakud,

            At: Apartipur, PO:Matipaka,

            PS: Naikanidihi, Dist:Bhadrak

                                                               …………………………Opp.Parties

Order No.37 dt.10.06.2016:

            This case has been filed by the Complainant alleging deficiency of service against the O.Ps on the ground of receiving excess amount towards sale of prawn feeds. According to Complainant he purchased 75 kgs of Prawn Feeds from the shop of O.Ps on 19.09.2014 but the O.Ps   received from his Rs.11,850/-  beyond the actual price. Actually, the cost of 75 kgs of Prawn Feeds was Rs.6,918/- then. As such, the O.Ps received excess amount of Rs.4,910/- from him which put him under mental agony. So the Complainant filed this case on 10.12.2014 claiming refund of Rs.4,910/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the O.Ps.

            On receipt of notice, the O.P.No.1 filed written version stating therein that he is not the proprietor of the shop. M/s.Guddy Acqua Culture deals with prawn feeds, medicines, lime and other allied things. Sri Sanjaya Mahakud is the sole proprietor of the said farm.

            After amendment of the complaint petition, the O.P.No.2 was added as parties to this case vide order No.15 dt.20.07.2015. On receipt of notice the O.P.No.2 filed written version denying the averments made in the complaint. According to O.P.No.2, the Complainant happens to be his close relative. The Complainant had been doing prawn culture and due to loss in his business he was in severe financial crisis. Complainant approached O.P.No.2 for some financial help. O.P.No.2 assured him to provide prawn feeds on free of cost and told the Complainant not to disclose the same before O.P.No.1 who was managing the business. Accordingly, the Complainant received feeds on various dates from O.Ps without giving any single pie. Due to business accountability the O.P.No.1 issued cash memo in favour of Complainant. As the Complainant had taken the feeds on free of cost, there was no mention of amount in the cash memo and only the amount was mentioned. As per the practice, the Complainant had also signed on the stock register on every receiving date where there was no mention of price. The carbon copy of cash memo and the original stock register relating to 19.09.2014 has been filed by the O.Ps to prove that there is no mention of price on it. So charging of more price does not arise at all when the Complainant had taken the feeds on free of cost. After prawn culture, some political dispute arose between the Complainant and the O.Ps for which the Complainant manipulating cash memo filed this false case against the O.Ps only to harass them. As the document filed by the Complainant is a forged and manipulated one, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

            We have heard the Ld.Counsel appearing for O.Ps  and perused the documents such as Xerox copy of cash memo,  rate chart of prawn feeds for  the year 2004 filed by the Complainant.  So also perused the Xerox copy of VAT Form No.103, carbon copy of cash memo No.446 dt.19.09.2014 signed by Complainant and Xerox copy of stock register from dt.18.09.14 to 19.09.2014 filed from the side of O.Ps.

                    The dispute between the Complainant and the O.Ps is with regard to charging of excess price by the O.Ps towards prawn feeds than the price displayed on the goods. According to Complainant he purchased 75 kgs of prawn feeds from O.Ps on 19.09.2014, cost of which was  Rs.92.25 paise,  whereas the O.Ps took Rs.158/- per kg from him and issued cash memo for  Rs.11,850/-. As such, the O.Ps took excess of Rs.4,910/- from him which they are liable to refund. On the contrary, the case of the O.Ps is that prawn feeds  was supplied to Complainant on  free of cost without mention of price but the Complainant manipulating the cash memo  filed the present case to harass the O.Ps. On a thorough scrutiny of Xerox copy of cash memo No.446 dt.19.09.2014 filed by the Complainant along with the carbon copy of the said cash memo filed by the O.Ps, it is found that Rs.11,850/- as balance has been mentioned on the Xerox copy of cash memo filed by the Complainant, whereas  there is no mention of Rs.11,850/- in the facsimile carbon copy filed by the O.Ps on which the Complainant has put his signature. Further, the rate chart filed by the Complainant is for the year 2004, whereas the Complainant said to had purchased prawn feeds in the year 2014. All these things taken together go to show that the Complainant with personal enmity has filed this case against the O.Ps by manipulating the cash memo. Further, determination of the facts as to whether Complainant has manipulated the cash memo dt.19.09.2014  or signed on the carbon copy of cash memo dt.19.09.2014 are complicated issues of facts involving taking of elaborate evidence and adducing documentary evidence.  It is the settled principle of law that where   issues raised cannot be determined without taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence, it is open to the Forum to decline to exercise jurisdiction and refer the party to his ordinary remedy by way of suit. Accordingly, it is ordered:

O R D E R

                        In result, we dismiss the complaint as not maintainable. However, the complainant is given the liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, if so advised. Parties to bear their own costs.