IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 31th day of January, 2018.
Filed on 08/02//2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.47/2016
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Shibu 1. Sri.Shajahan
Gopalakrishnamandirathil Sabeena Stores,
Bhudanoor.P.O Payikkada Road,
Chengannoor Mukkada Bazaar,
(By Adv.Hari kumar. R. Kottoor) Kollam
(By Adv.V. Vijayakumar)
2. Sri.Shahul Hameed
Puthenbanglavil Veedu, Mannar.P.O Alappuzha-689 622
ORDER
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case precisely is as follows:-
1. The complainant on 5th November 2015 purchased 50kg of biriyani rice namely `20-20’ from the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.3350/- (Rupees three thousand three hundred and fifty only). The 2nd opposite party issued Bill No. 106 to that effect to the complainant. It is the 1st opposite party who supplied the material Biriyani rice to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant purchased the aforesaid rice for the purpose of celebrating the birth day of the complainant’s nephew the next day. When the biriyani was prepared on 6th November 2015, the same seemed inferior in quality namely extremely sticky that exuded foul smell. The entire biriyani so prepared was absolutely inedible. The complainant was constrained to purchase 200 biriyani and plain rice from `Al Nur’ catering service to treat his visitors that day. On 7th November 2015, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and impressed upon his miserable experience with the rice the complainant purchased from him. Upon this the 2nd opposite party called the 1st opposite party up over the phone, and both the 2nd opposite party and the complainant apprised the 1st opposite party of what happened when the material rice was cooked. Both the opposite parties assured the complainant that they are very much prepared to compensate for the complainant’s damage. However the opposite parties were not keen on keeping their word. The complainant cause to send a notice to the opposite parties which also brought no meaningful outcome. The opposite parties’ intention was to make illegal enrichment on selling poor quality rice. The complainant sustained both monitory as well as mental woes. On got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being sent, the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties turned up and filed separate versions. According to the 1st opposite party, the first opposite party is always selling rice of superior quality. The rice alleged to have been purchased by the complainant from the 2nd opposite party is not the rice the 1st opposite party supplied to the 2nd opposite party. For the last several years the 1st opposite party has been selling the `20-20’ branded rice. As of date no manner of complaint has been there bought the material brand of rice. The complainant has not talked to this opposite party over phone as claimed by the complainant. The 1st opposite party has not received any intention to make illegal enrichment. The complainant has not subjected the material rice to any scientific test before alleging as to its quality. The 1st opposite party is not in good terms with the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party has instituted a suit OS No.53/2016 for recovery of money against the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has colluded with the complainant to file the instant complaint. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to this opposite party, the 2nd opposite party vehemently contends. As per the 2nd opposite party, the rice this opposite party sold out to the complainant was purchased from the 1st opposite party. When the complainant came over to this opposite party’s shop to raise the complaint about the rice this opposite party called up the 1st opposite party over phone, and both had agreed to compensate the complainant for the damage the complainant sustained. The 2nd opposite party backed out from recompensing the complainant for he is all alone incapable of providing compensation to the complainant. This opposite party purchased the rice from the 1st opposite party without examining its quality. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost, the 2nd opposite party contends.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1 and the testimony of PW2, and the documents produced have been marked as Exts. A1 and A2. The 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit and produced one document marked as Ext. B1.The 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit.
4. Bearing the complainant’s contentions in mind, the issues that come up for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the Biriyani rice purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties’ was defective?
(b) Whether the opposite parties’ service is deficient?
(c) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, we anxiously analysed the entire materials placed on record by the parties. We meticulously perused the complaint, objections, proof affidavits, depositions, and all other documents brought on record by the parties. The complainant’s particular case is that he purchased 50kg biriyani rice from the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.3350/-. The complainant so purchased the aforesaid rice for the purpose of celebrating his nephew’s birth day. When the rice was cooked, the same seemed sticky rather stinking. The entire rice was unsuitable for eating, and the complainant had to purchase 200 biriyani besides plain rise from `Al Nur’ catering service. Bearing the complainant’s contentions in mind, we went through the contentions put forth by the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party contends that the rice alleged to have been complainant purchased from the 2nd opposite party is not the one the 1st opposite party sold out to the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party always sells rice of superior quality without giving a single opportunity for any sort of complaints. According to the 1st opposite party, the 2nd opposite party is nurturing ill feeling towards 1st opposite party for the reason that the 1st opposite party has filed OS No.53 /2016 before the Hon’ble Munsiff’s Court, Kollam for recovery of money against the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has colluded with the complaint to institute the instant complaint. Holding in view the 1st opposite party’s particular contention as to 2nd opposite party’s hostility to the 1st opposite party we examined the contentions the 2nd opposite party raised. It seems that the 2nd opposite party though made an attempt to make it appear as if challenging the complainant’s case, actually more or less supporting the complainant’s case. In this context, we have come on to the view that the entire circumstance of the instant complaint is to be scrutinized in the aforesaid backdrop. It is well settled that mere putting forth allegation without sufficient materials to substantiate the same is inconsequential. The complainant’s specific allegation is that the rice prepared was inedible. Consequent upon this he had to purchase 200 biriyani and other food stuffs from other catering service. Going by the material available on record nothing is there to substantiate rather to support the complainant’s particular case. What is more the strange and unusual approach adopted by the 2nd opposite party only adds to the complainant’s woes. Thus on a perusal of the entire materials available on record, and analysis of the particular premise of the instant case, we are persuaded to arrive on the view that the complainant is disentitled to any relief sought for. Needless to say the complaint must fail.
In the light of what have been elaborated herein above, we hold that the complaint stands dismissed.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this 31th day of January 2018.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : . Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Shibu (Witness)
PW2 - V.H.Rajan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the retail invoice for Rs.3350/-
Ext.A2 - Copy of the registered notice
Evidence of the opposite parties :-
RW1 - Shajahan (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of complaint No.OS/53/2016 before the Hon’ble
Munsiff Court, Kollam.
// True Copy //
By Order To Senior Superintendent
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
