DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Friday the 21^st day of July 2023

C.C.110/2011

Complainant

C.P Surendran,

Meppadam House,

Mannur, Kadalundi,

Kozhikode – 673 328.

(By Adv. Sri. Pavithran.K)

Opposite Party

Steel Complex Ltd,

(A Govt of Kerala Undertaking),

Feroke,

Kozhikode – 673 631.

(By Adv. Sri. K.P.Damodaran Nambiar)

                                                                                    ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT 

        This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

                   The opposite party is the Steel Complex Ltd, a Govt. of Kerala undertaking. The complainant wanted to purchase steel for his house construction. He came to know that steel could be bought from the opposite party on prior booking at the rate on the booking date. Accordingly, on 22-12-2010 the complainant booked 1.5 tonne 8 mm steel at the booking centre. He was informed by the depot authorities that the material could be taken within 10 days at the booking rate. On 23-12-2010 the complainant reached the depot along with his friend Mr. Rajan, who had also booked steel on the same date. The depot authorities informed the complainant that there was no stock and was told to contact over phone and then come to the depot for taking the material on arrival. Later on enquiry over phone, it was informed that the stock had not arrived.  In the meanwhile, the price of the steel in the market had increased considerably. Every time, at the time of enquiry, the depot authorities confirmed that the complainant could get the steel at the booking rate.

3.    After one month, as usual, the complainant enquired and the depot authorities informed him that the stock of 8 mm steel had arrived. Accordingly he reached the depot by 12.30 pm. But he was told that the stock had been exhausted. But Mr. Rajan got the steel he had booked in the booking day rate.  The complainant was asked to wait still stock had arrived and assured that the steel would be supplied to him on arrival at the booking rate.

4.     On 09-02-2011 on contacting over phone, he was informed that the stock had arrived and that he could collect the booked lot. Accordingly he reached the depot and showed the booking paper to the sales manager. But the sales manager stated that the booking date is very old and that the scheme was cancelled and that the material could be supplied only at the then existing market rate. He was told to meet the depot manager. On that day the depot manager was on leave and on the next day when he met him, his response was also not good and insisted that the purchase could be only at the market rate. Even the advance amount of Rs.100/- was not returned to him.

5.     Now the rate of steel has gone up. If at the time of booking, the opposite party had informed him that the booking was for a limited period and that if he did not get the material with in the stipulated period the booking would be cancelled, he could have bought the material from open market at a reduced rate. The complainant is a poor man running a grocery shop and it was his dream to build a house. He was cheated by the opposite party and was put in a helpless situation. Hence the complaint seeking a total compensation of Rs.31,500/-(Rs.16,500/- being the difference in the price, Rs.10000/- being the loss due to increase in the cost of other materials including cement, sand and labour charges and Rs.5000/- for the mental agony suffered). 

6.     The opposite party has resisted the complaint by filing written version wherein all the allegations and the claims made in the complaint are denied. According to the opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable. The averment that the opposite party is supplying steel on prior booking at the rate on the booking date and that on 22-12-2010 the complainant had booked 1.5 tonne of 8 mm steel at the booking centre and the depot authorities had told the complainant that the material could be taken within 10 days at the booking rate is not true and hence denied. The opposite party is engaged in the manufacture of steel billets and marketing of constructional steel items. The opposite party do not have steel rolling mill and hence steel billets are supplied to private rolling mills for converting the same in to TMT rods. After the receipt of the TMT rods from the rolling mill the same is sold through opposite party’s sales depot at factory premises. The opposite party is marketing TMT rod of different specification varying from 6mm to 25 mm. Even though ordinarily all items are kept available in the sales depot, at all times all items may not be available.

7.   To promote trade and industries, the Beypore Development Mission had organized a trade fair at Feroke during the period from 19-12-2010 to 25-12-2010 and the opposite party had participated in the said trade fair by installing one stall in the fair as part of sales promotion. In the fair, the opposite party had offered 1% discount to the customers who had registered by paying Rs.100/- for a period of 10 days from the date of registration. The customers who registered in the trade fair could avail 1% discount on purchase effected through their sales depot at the prevailing market price till the validity period is over. The discount is available only for the materials available during the validity period of 10 days.

8. It is true that the complainant had registered a discount offer upon payment of Rs.100/- on 22-12-2010 in the trade fair and it was open to the complainant to purchase the items available with the sales depot up to 01-01-2011. The complainant could have purchased the available materials and availed the discount facility. But the complainant had not chosen to purchase the available items till the expiry of the time limit. On 23-12-2012 the complainant along with one Mr. Rajan, who also had registered discount facility, had visited the Sales Depot for enquiring about the availability of materials. The sales depot in charge informed both that 8mm rods were not available and that they could take delivery of other items. They were also informed that the opposite party is manufacturing steel billets and the billets are converted into iron rods from the rolling mills at Coimbatore and since there were problems in the rolling mills at Coimbatore they were not supplying the iron rods according to the opposite party’s requirement and if the consignment of 8 mm steel rods reached the sales depot, the same would be informed to the complainant immediately. 
9. On 06-01-2011 consignment of 8 mm rods reached at the sales depot of the opposite party and the matter was informed to the complainant and Mr.Rajan over phone.  Mr. Rajan came to sales depot and 8 mm iron rods were supplied to him as per his requirement and as per his request 1% discount facility was extended to him. But the complainant had reached the premises only late evening and by that time the 8mm rods were sold out. The complainant could not avail the discount facility and take delivery of steel only due to his failure and this opposite party is not liable for the same. The averment that the complainant had reached the sales depot by 12.30 p.m and that he was informed that the stock had been exhausted and that he would get the steel on arrival at the booking rate is incorrect and hence denied.
10. The averment in the complaint that on 09-02-2011 when the complainant enquired again over phone, the opposite party informed that the stock had arrived and that the complainant could collect the booking lot is incorrect and hence denied. The opposite party had not taken any order from the complainant at the time of registration nor thereafter. The opposite party had also not undertaken that the steel would be supplied to the complainant at the market rate prevailing at the time of registration. The opposite party had not collected any advance from the complainant at the time of registration. Only registration charge of Rs.100/- was collected from the complainant.
11. There is no defective service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. There is no truth or bonafides on the part of the complainant in preferring the complaint.  With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.
12. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are:

1. Whether there was any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?

2)  Reliefs and costs.

13. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the opposite party.
14. Heard both sides.
15. Point No.1:   The complainant has approached this commission alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  The specific allegation is that though he had booked 8 mm steel rod at the booking centre by paying Rs.100/-, the material was not supplied by the opposite party as agreed.
16. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant has got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the advance receipt dated 22/12/2010 issued by the opposite party for having received advance of Rs.100/-, Ext A2 and A3 are the copies of the tax invoices dated 06/01/2011 issued by the opposite party to Mr.Rajan, Ext A4 is the copy of the weighbridge bill dated 06/01/2011 and Ext A5 and A6 are the tax invoices dated 10/02/2011 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
17. The case advanced by the opposite party is that on 22/10/2010 the complainant had registered a discount offer upon payment of Rs.100/- and the period of discount offer of 1% was for 10 days from the date of registration only for available specifications.  The complainant did not avail the discount offers within the specified time by purchasing the available materials and the stock of 8 mm rods were not available.  It is also the case of the opposite party that what was collected from the complainant was only registration charge of Rs.100/- and not advance.  The senior officer- (Materials) - of the opposite party was examined as RW1.  RW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting and reiterating the contentions in the written version.  Ext B1 is the copy of the sales ledger folio.
18. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice in not providing the steel required by him evenafter receiving advance of Rs.100/- as per Ext A1.  It was pointed out that after offering steel at a discount rate, the opposite party cannot now contend that the offer was available only for available specifications.  Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant has not proved that he was offered steel of any particular specification or any particular quantity or that there existed any specific agreement in respect of the same between the parties.  Further it was argued that the offer was for a limited period of 10 days subject to available specifications.
19.  There are some admitted facts in this case. That in the trade fair organized by the Beypore Development Mission at Feroke the opposite party had participated by installing one stall as a part of  sale promotion and had offered 1% discount to the customers who had paid Rs.100/- for a period of 10 days from the date of registration is admitted.  That the complainant had paid Rs.100/- on 22/12/2010 in the trade fair and the period of discount offer would expire on 01/10/2011 as far as the complainant is concerned is admitted.  It is not disputed that on 23/12/2010 the complainant visited the sales depot of the opposite party and wanted to purchase 8 mm rods.  But the stock of 8 mm rods was not available then.  That on a subsequent date the complainant reported in the sales depot as he got information that consignment of 8 mm rods had reached is not disputed.  But he could not get the material whereas his friend Mr.Rajan who had also booked could get the material.  There is no serious dispute on the above aspects. 
20. The contention of the opposite party is that the offer was only for available specifications.  In this context, it is worthwhile to have a glance at Ext A1.  Ext A1 does not give even the slightest indication that the offer of 1% discount on basic price was available only for the materials available during the validity period of 10 days.  There is no document forthcoming indicating that the offer was only for available specifications.  The opposite party has no case that they had published the details of the materials available with them in the trade fair.  It is admitted by RW1 in the box that no documents are available to show that there was any such condition limiting the offer to the available items.  It is averred in Paragraph 3 of the written version that the opposite party is marketing TMT rod of different specification varying from 6 mm to 25 mm and that eventhough ordinarily all items are kept available in the sales depot, at all times all items may not be  available.  If that be so, it was the duty of the opposite party to specify to the customers what all items would be available in the sales depot during the period, at the time of the discount offer.  The customers cannot be kept in darkness.  If stock of all specifications was not available, the opposite party should not have made the offer.  Receiving advance for the item not available cannot be justified.
21. Another contention taken by the opposite party is that only registration charge of Rs.100/- was collected from the complainant and no advance was received.  But this is belied by Ext A1.  There is clear recital in Ext A1 to the effect that Rs.100/- was received towards advance.  There is no mention about any registration charges in Ext A1.  Therefore the contention of the opposite party that what was collected was registration charges cannot be accepted.  After receiving the advance, the opposite party cannot be heard to say that they have not offered steel of any particular specification for any particular quantity. 
22. Yet another contention of the opposite party is that the offer expired within a period of 10 days and the complainant was bound to make the purchase within the said period.  But it is an admitted fact that on the very next day of Ext A1, the complainant had approached the opposite party for the material, but the same was not supplied to him for the reason that the stock had exhausted.  The complainant cannot be blamed for the latches of the opposite party.  He had approached the opposite party to purchase the material within the offer period.  Moreover, it may be noted that for Ext A2 and A3 purchase made by Mr. Rajan on 06/01/2011, the discount was given even after 10 days.  So the opposite party cannot escape by saying that the offer was available only for 10 days.
23. As we have already stated, the validity of the offer would expire on 01/01/2011 as far as the complainant is concerned.  Admittedly, the complainant had approached the opposite party on the next day itself, ie, on 23/12/2010.  But he was not supplied with the material for the reason that the stock had exhausted.  PW1 has deposed that thereafter he contacted the opposite party several times and again he reported in the sales depot on getting information that the stock had arrived.  But on that day also, the material was not supplied to him whereas Mr. Rajan had received the same at the discounted rate as can be seen from Exts A2 and A3.  The reason stated in the version for not supplying the items to the complainant on that day is that the complainant reached the depot only late evening and by that time the 8 mm rods were sold out and stock exhausted.  But while in the box, RW1 has a quite contrary version in this regard.  According to RW1, 8 mm rods were not supplied to the complainant on that day since he had not brought any vehicle for transporting the item.  RW1 has no case that the non-supply of 8 mm rods was due to non- availability of stock.  On the other hand, he is specific that non arrangement of transport facility by the complainant for carrying the material was the reason for not supplying 8 mm rods to the complainant on that day.  Thus, the opposite party has no consistent case in this regard. 

24. Offering discount of 1% on basic price and receiving advance amount and thereafter not supplying the material stating non-availability of stock constitutes unfair trade practice.  It is also an admitted fact that the advance amount received from the complainant was not refunded to him.  The complainant wanted to purchase the material for his house construction and he had visited the depot at least twice and had to contact the opposite party over telephone multiple times.  According to the complainant, due to the non-supply of the material at discounted rate, he was compelled to procure the material at a higher price for his house construction. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to intense mental agony and hardship due to the unfair trade practice indulged by the opposite party. We find that this is a fit case where the complainant is to be compensated adequately.  Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
25. Point No:2 :- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows:

1. C.C. NO: 110/2011 is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
4. The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

Pronounced in open Commission on this the 21^st day of July, 2023.

Date of Filing: 09-03-2011.

        Sd/-                                                         Sd/-                                                           Sd/-

   PRESIDENT                                       MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 - Copy of the advance receipt dated 22/12/2010 issued by the opposite party for having received advance of Rs.100/-.

Ext A2 - Copy of the tax invoice dated 06/01/2011 issued by the opposite party to Mr. Rajan.

Ext A3 - Copy of the tax invoice dated 06/01/2011 issued by the opposite party to     Mr. Rajan.

Ext A4 - Copy of the weighbridge bill dated 06/01/2011.

Ext A5 –Copy of the tax invoice dated 10/02/2011 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

  Ext A6 – Copy of the tax invoice dated 10/02/2011 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Ext B1 - Copy of the sales ledger folio.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 – Surendran.C.P  (Complainant).

Witnesses for the opposite parties 

RW1 – Mohammed Saju.

   Sd/-                                                         Sd/-                                                Sd/-

PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                     MEMBER

                                                              True copy,

                                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                                                               Assistant Registrar.