..1..
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GADAG. Basaveshwar Nagar, Opp: Tahasildar Office, Gadag COMPLAINT NO.188/2022 DATED 6TH DAY OF APRIL-2023 |
BEFORE: | | | HON'BLE MR. D.Y. BASAPUR B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) PRESIDENT | | HON'BLE Mr. RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) MEMBER HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed., WOMAN MEMBER | | |
|
Complainant: 1) Reshma D/o Padmajisab Jamalkhanavar,
Age:28 Yrs, Occ:Advocate, R/o Asundi Tq: & Dist:Gadag.
(Rep. by Sri. M.A.Phaniband, Advocate)
V/s
Opposite Parties :- | 1) | Sai Ram Enterprises, Proprietor by name, Sridhar S/o Tippanna Somashetty Near Chikkatti School, Opposite Petrol Bank, Mundargi Road, Adavisomapur, Tq: & Dist:Gadag. (Since shop closed the Residential address of the Op No.1) Sridhar S/o Tippanna Somashetty J.T.College Road, Near Karadi Adde, Gadag-Betageri, (Absent) |
| 2) | ..2.. The Manager, Canara Bank, Near Gandhi Circle, Branch, Gadag. (Rep. by Sri. R.V.Kumar, Advocate) |
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI.D.Y.BASAPUR, PRESIDENT.
The complainant has filed the complaint U/Sec. 35 of C.P Act, 2019 seeking direction against the Op No.1 to supply the raw materials as per the Quotation or to pay D.D. amount Rs.84,093.74 with interest @ 21% p.a. from the date of receipt till realization, Rs.50,000/- for loss of non-construction of the building, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- towards damage.
2. The brief facts of complaint are as under:-
The complainant has applied for loan to the Op No.2 bank for construction of new building and bank agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- and demanded to bring the quotation. Op No.1 issued quotation on 20.06.2022 for supply of the raw materials for an amount of Rs.84,093.74 ps. Later, bank sanctioned the loan amount and credited the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- to the S.B. A/c and issued D.D. bearing No.188549 on 11.07.2022 in the name of Op No.1, which is credited in the current account No.848620110000141. However, Op No.1 did not supply the raw materials as per the contract. Therefore, Op No.1 has failed to discharge his obligation and committed the deficiency of service. Hence, filed this complaint.
3. After admitting the complaint, notice were issued to the OPs, Op No.1 remained absent. Op No.2 has appeared through their counsel and filed their written version.
..3..
4. The brief facts of written version of OP No.2 are as under:
The OP No.2 denied the contents of the complaint and admitted that, a loan of Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant and also issued D.D. for Rs.84,093.74 p.s in the name of OP No.1 and which is credited in the current account. Op No.2 contends that, there is no agreement between the Op No.1 & Op No.2 bank. Op No.2 is not a consumer to make contract between the Op No.1 and the complainant and the Op No.2 has not committed any deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint against this Op No.2.
5. To prove the case, the complainant has filed affidavit and was examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8. Shri. Maneesh Palapally for Op No.2 has filed affidavit and was examined as RW-1.
6. Heard the argument on both sides.
7. The points for consideration are,
1. Whether the complainant proves that the deficiency of service committed by the OP No.1?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs
as sought for?
3. What order?
8. Our findings on the above points are as under:
Point No 1. In the affirmative.
Point No 2. In the partly affirmative.
Point No 3. See final order.
..4..
REASONS
9 .Point No.1 and 2: The point No.1 and 2 are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts. The learned counsel for complainant argued that, as per evidence of PW-1 and Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 complainant has proved the deficiency of service committed by the OPs. The learned counsel for Op No.2 argued that, no deficiency of service is committed by this Op.
10. On careful perusal of all the documents and materials placed before the commission, complainant has filed affidavit and was examined as PW-1 and has reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW-1 has stated that, the complainant had applied for loan with the Op No.2 bank for construction of new building and bank agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- and demanded to bring the quotation. Op No.1 issued quotation on 20.06.2022 for supply of the raw materials for an amount of Rs.84,093.74 paise. Later, bank sanctioned the loan and credited the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- to the S.B. A/c and issued D.D. bearing No.188549 on 11.07.2022 in the name of Op No.1 Sai Enterprises which is credited in the Bank of India current account No.848620110000141. However, Op No.1 did not supply the raw materials as per the contract. Therefore, Op No.1 has failed to discharge his obligation and committed the deficiency of service.
11. RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version filed by OP No.2. RW-1 has stated that, The OP No.2 denied the contents of the complaint and admitted that, loan of Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant and also issued D.D. for Rs.84,093.74 paise in the name of OP No.1 and which is credited in the current account. Op No.2 contended that, there is no agreement between the Op No.1 & Op No.2. Op No.2 is not a consumer to make contract between Op No.1 and the complainant and not committed deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint against this Op No.2.
..5..
12. At the very outset, Op No.2 has admitted the contention of the complaint.Ex.C-1 quotation issued by Op No.1 in favour of complainant for Rs.84,093.74 ps. Ex.C-2 Pay slip by Op No.2 bank reveals that, D.D. was issued in favour of Op No.1 for Rs.84,093.74 paise. Ex.C-3 letter issued by Op No.2 to Op No.1 reveals that, D.D. was issued to the Op No.1, Ex.C-4 statement of loan account reveals that, Op No.2 bank credited Rs.50,000/- towards the loan account of complainant. Ex.C-5 legal notice issued to Op No.1, Ex.C-6 Postal receipt and Ex.C-7 Postal cover reveals that, notice un-served with endorsement as not known for Beat No.1, try to Beat No.14. Ex.C-8 Copy of pass book of complainant reveals that on 08.07.2022, Rs.50,000/- credited and in all balance is Rs.85,104.66 ps. On the same day Canara bank issued D.D. for Rs.84,093.74 Ps.
13. For the above, it is crystal clear that, Op No.1 issued quotation for supply of materials for construction of the building and D.D. was issued by Op No.2 bank for Rs.84,093.74 paise is credited to the current account of Op No.1. However, Op No.1 did not supply the material for construction of the building inspite of oral request and legal notice issued. Even, Op No.1 has remained absent inspite of service of notice issued by this Commission and not chosen to appear and file written version. So, the oral and documentary evidence of complainant has remained unchallenged by Op No.1. Thus, there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant. So, complainant has proved that, Op No.1 has committed the deficiency of service and entitled for the relief. Complainant is claiming interest @ 21%, it is at higher side, it is proper to award interest @9% p.a. from the date of D.D. dtd:08.07.2022 till realization. Complainant being a Lady Advocate has suffered mentally a lot, due to non-supply of raw materials for construction of the building without reasonable grounds, therefore, complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the litigation. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 partly in affirmative.
14. Point No.3:- In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint filed U/Sec. 35 of the consumer Protection Act, 2019 is hereby partly allowed against Op No.1 and dismissed against Op No.2.
Op No.1 is directed to pay a sum Rs.84,094/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 08.07.2022 till realization.
Further, Op No.1 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation, within a period of two months from the date of this order.
Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on 6th day of April-2023)
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
-: ANNEXURE :-
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:
PW-1: Reshma Padmajisab Jamalkhanavar
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1 : Copy of Sai Ram Enterprises receipt No.003
dtd:20.06.2022.
Ex.C-2 : Deposit Pay slip of B.O.I.
Ex.C-3: Canara Bank issued letter to Op No.1, dtd:08.07.2022.
Ex.C-4 :Statement of loan A/c.
Ex.C-5 : Legal notice.
Ex.C-6 : Postal receipt.
Ex.C-7 : Postal cover.
Ex.C-8 : Copy of passbook.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:
RW-1 : Maneesh P.Rajeshwar Parlapally.
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs
NIL
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
