FA.No.1707/2006 against CC.No.110/2005 District Consumer Forum, Chittoor. 

Between:

Sri R.Sreenadha Reddy,

S/o.Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy,

Aged about 47 years,

R/at H.No.2-596, Satharam Street,

Kongareddipalle, Chittoor Town.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

Sri T.Durga Prasad,

S/o.Sri T.Krishnam Naidu,

Aged 36 years,

Proprietor of Sai Durga Traders,

Shop No.1, M.S.R.Complex,

Palamaner Road, Chittoor Town and District.

…Respondent/Opp.Party.

Counsel for the Appellant         : Mr.M.Hari Babu.

Counsel for the Respondent     :  Respondent served.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO,PRESIDENT.

&

SMT. M. SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         Appellant is the unsuccessful complainant.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a resident of Chittoor town. He engaged services of the respondent for laying floor and paid Rs.19,000/- in all.  However, he did not fix Bethamcherla stones as agreed.  On that, he issued a notice on 05.10.2005 directing him to fix the stones, but he did not comply though notice was served on him.  Therefore, he got the tiles fixed by spending an amount of Rs.19,000/-.  Therefore, he filed the complaint claiming the amount together with compensation and costs.      

3.         The opposite party filed counter resisting the case.  He stated that he received Rs.15,000/- for laying tiles and in fact he laid Bethamcherla stones.  As against an amount of Rs.37,200/-, he received only Rs.15,000/-.  The complainant had to pay the balance Rs.22,200/-.  In fact he purchased the said stones from New Ravi Sankar Stones and Minerals, Bethamcherla under invoice, way bill and form-E (Transit Pass).  He completed the work with the help of a polish cutter by name Gopal.  Despite his repeated requests, the complainant did not pay the amount.  In order to get over the payment, he filed the complaint. 

4.         The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs.A.1 to A.6 marked, while the respondent filed his own affidavit besides that of Manchini Ramana Reddy, the Proprietor of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara & Company, Punganur, to prove that he supplied Bethamcherla Stones to the complainant under Ex.A.4 and got Exs.B.1 and B.2 marked.  The respondent filed IA.No.23/2006 for appointment of a Commissioner and accordingly a Commissioner was appointed to visit the house of the complainant and find out that whether Bethamcherla stones were fixed. 

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant failed to prove that he himself got the stones fixed.  At any rate, the respondent could prove that he laid the stones.  Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.  It ought to have seen that he got himself laid the stones and as such entitled for the reimbursement of the amount.

7.         At the outset, we may state that there is no dispute that the respondent’s services were procured for fixing Bethamcherla stones for flooring.  However, the complainant came up with a version stating that the respondent did not execute the work instead he executed the same, and therefore, entitled to reimbursement.  The respondent resisted the matter and contended that he fixed the Bethamcherla stones after purchasing the same from New Ravi Sankar Stones and Minerals, Bethamcherla.  Along with it he filed an application for appointment of a Commissioner.  When the Commissioner was appointed he visited the house of the complainant and found that Bethamcherla stones were in fact fixed. 

8.         In the circumstances the only point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant himself got the Bethamcherla stones fixed? 

9.         The evidence of the complainant that he got fixed Bethamcherla stones was equally refuted by the respondent by filing his own affidavit evidence.  The complainant in order to prove that he purchased Bethamcherla stones filed Ex.A.4, the receipt said to have to been issued by the Proprietor of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara & Company, Punganur.  Contrarily the said person filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of the respondents.  He was arrayed in evidence as R.W.2.  He stated that he never sold Bethamcherla stones to the complainant,  sells only Cuddpah stones and not Bethamcherla stones.  He stated that Ex.A.4 cash bill is a fabricated document and it was not issued by him. 

10.       Unfortunately, the complainant could not file any document in order to establish that R.W.2 has nothing to do with Ex.A.4. He could have examined R.W.2 in order to establish that he issued Ex.A.4 having sold Bethamcherla stones to the complainant.  When this crucial evidence was not contradicted, we cannot find fault with the order of the District Forum.  The complainant could not establish that he purchased Bethamcherla stones under Ex.A.4.  Evidently, the notice issued by the complainant was not received the respondent.  It was returned un-served.  There is no reason why the complainant got the stones fixed when he had paid about Rs.37,200/- to the respondent for laying Bethamcherla stones.  He could have filed complaint and took the Commissioner to show that the respondent did not execute the work.  On the other hand, it is the respondent that could establish that stones were fixed by him.  We do not see any flaw in the appreciation of the facts by the District Forum.  We do not see any merits in the appeal.

11.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  However, in the circumstances, no costs.

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER

                                                                Dt:28.01.2009.