1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is having a small Pan Shop at Kotpad town and also sales cool drinks in his shop for eking his livelihood. The OP.1 supplies Pepsi Drinks to the shop of the complainant.  It is submitted that the OP.1 proposed the complainant to purchase a refrigerator supplied by the Pepsi Co. to its vendors on deposit of Rs.4400/- in shape of D.D. in favour of OP.2 for preservation of cool drinks.  The OP.1 also made the complainant believe that he had discussions with the OP.2 and they are agree to supply the refrigerator within a fortnight on deposit of D.D. amount.  It is further submitted that the complainant purchased a D.D. bearing No.200988 dt.17.2.2014 for Rs.4400/- from SBI Bazar Branch, Jeypore in favour of M/s. SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and handed over the same along with required documents to OP.1 for supply of refrigerator but no refrigerator was supplied by the OPs in spite of several approaches for which the complainant sustained loss.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.4400/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 17.2.2014 and to pay Rs.12, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter contending that he never supplies Pepsi drinks to the complainant but supplies the said products to the SPOKE of the concerned area on wholesale basis from whom the complainant might have procured the product.  It is further contended that the Ops do not deal with the sale of refrigerator but provide refrigerator to the retailers through the Spoke concerned on lease basis on deposit of Rs.4400/- in shape of D.D. in favour of OP.2 subject to availability of instrument under the scheme to boost sale.  It is also further contended that the complainant deposited the D.D. along with required documents with OP.2 through Spoke of Kotpad but the OP.2 could not supply the refrigerator either due to non availability of the same or abolition of scheme.  The OP also submitted that the complainant was requested to take back the D.D. and documents but the complainant is insisting for refrigerator and hence he returned the D.D. and documents to the OP.2.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that M/s. SMV Beverages Pvt Ltd. is a Company who deals with manufacturing and sale of soft drinks of different brands and never sales refrigerator and refrigerator is used to supply to its outlets (retailer counters) free of cost for its business promotion on execution of proper agreement.  The OP.2 denies about the submission of the complainant that the OP.1 received the D.D. and documents from the complainant for supply of refrigerator as a representative of the Company.  It is also further contended that the OP.2 is completely unconnected with the claims as advanced by the complainant.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP.2 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  The OP.2 filed affidavit.  The OP.1 also filed one document in support of his case.  The Ops did not participate in the hearing in spite of repeated adjournments.  Heard from the complainant at length and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case the complainant is having a Pan Shop in which he sales cool drinks.  The OP.1 is the distributor of Pepsi drinks manufactured by OP.2 who provide refrigerator to the retailer on lease basis accepting deposit of Rs.4400/- for preservation and sale of their products.  According to the complainant, the OP.1 proposed him to avail a refrigerator by depositing the said amount in shape of Demand Draft in favour of OP.2 and the complainant has purchased a D.D. vide No.200988 dt.17.2.2014 for Rs.4400/- from SBI, Bazar Branch, Jeypore and handed over the same to OP.1 along with all required documents.  Due to non supply of refrigerator, the complainant has come up with this case.

5.                     The OP.1 on being noticed furnished his reply admitting receipt of D.D. and documents from the complainant but stated that due to non availability of instrument, the same could not be supplied to the complainant by the OP.2.  The OP further stated that he tried to return the D.D. to the complainant but the complainant is insisting refrigerator.  The OP.1 has furnished a copy of letter written by him to the Head of Sales of OP.2 from which it was ascertained that the OP.1 has handed over the D.D. to Head of Sales through one Himansu Sekhar Swain, C.E. Pepsi Co., SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. on 16.4.2015.

6.                     On the other hand, the O.2 denies all the allegations of the complainant as well as the contentions of OP No.1.  The said denials of the OP.2 are not supported by any cogent evidence.  From the materials available on record it can be clearly ascertained that the OP.2 is supplying refrigerator to its retailers for its business promotion and in Para-7 of its counter the OP.2 also stated that they used to supply refrigerator to its retail counters free of cost on execution of proper agreement.  Further, before filing of this case, the OP.1 has sent the D.D. and relevant papers of the complainant to OP.2 but it is quite unfortunate that the OP.2 is denying receipt of D.D.  However, it is true that in spite of payment, the complainant is yet to receive the refrigerator from OP.2.

7.                     From the above discussions, it was ascertained that the OP.2 is supplying refrigerator to its retail counters and the complainant being a retailer is entitled to get a refrigerator.  Accordingly the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.4400/- in shape of D.D. but the Ops failed to supply the refrigerator.  Thus the OPs committed deficiency in service.  In absence of participation of Ops in hearing, we had no scope to hear anything more from them.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for a refrigerator from OP.2.  Regarding payment of D.D. amount it was also ascertained that the D.D. has become stale due to non encasement of the same and the D.D. is still with OP.2.  To renew the D.D. some charges might be levied on the complainant.  D.D. was purchased in favour of the OP.2 for supply of refrigerator and non supply of the same is the fault of the Ops.  Hence any further amount if levied for renew of the D.D., the said charges shall be borne by the OP.2 to which we treat as compensation in favour of the complainant.  All the arrangements for renew of D.D. at SBI, Bazar Branch, Jeypore are to be made by the Ops 1 & 2.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.2 is directed to supply a refrigerator to the shop of the complainant and to make all arrangements to get the stale D.D. renewed in the bank branch at its own costs with the help of the complainant and OP.1.  We are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant as the cost of differential amount for renews or purchase of fresh D.D. shall be borne by the OP.2.  However, we direct the OP.2 to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.  The above directions are to be complied by OP.2 within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)