DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of filing: 19/02/2020
CC/28/2020
Innocent V.C, - Complainant
Valiyaveettil House,
Shoranur,Palakkad- 679 121.
(Party in person)
Vs
T.P.Baskaran, - Opposite Party
S/o Chamy,
Thayattuparambil,Poyiloor,
Ongaloor.
(By Adv. Ramdas M.)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant ordered a single coat & a double coat from the opposite party and paid an advance amount of Rs.30,000/- to him. The opposite party agreed to make it with teak wood and deliver the coats by 12th March 2019. But the opposite party delivered one coat only and that itself was made of poor quality wood and not with teak wood as agreed. Within a few months, white coloured powder started falling from the coat and on inspection it was understood that it is because of the poor quality of the wood used in making the coat. The opposite party did not provide bill to the complainant. The non delivery of the ordered item and the poor quality of the supplied coat had caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to supply the
ordered item as per their agreement and to pay a compensation of
Rs.60,000/-.
2. After admitting complaint, registered notice was issued to the opposite party . The opposite party entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The opposite party in his version, after denying the averments in the complaint in toto, contented that he neither had an oral agreement with the complainant for making coats nor received any amount for that purpose. Opposite party is not responsible for the mental agony and financial loss, if any, caused to the complainant and the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party.
The opposite party had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the complainant in the year 2017 and as security for that amount, the complainant had made him sign in some blank papers. Because of his financial crisis, the opposite party could not pay the amount within time, but paid interest regularly and by 2018, he had repaid the entire amounts together with interest. The complainant demanded Rs.10,000/- more for closing that transaction and to return the signed blank papers. But the opposite party did not agree with that. The complaint was filed only to harass the opposite party for not agreeing with the complainant’s demand and it has to be dismissed.
4. Complainant filed chief affidavit in Evidence and produced 3 photographs of the coat which were marked as Ext A1 series (a) to (c) Opposite party did not file proof affidavit and his evidence was closed as there was no representation from his part. Heard the complainant.
5. Main points arising for consideration.
1. Whether there is any Deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
3. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
Points 1 , 2 & 3
6. Complainant’s case is that he entrusted the work of making a single coat and double coat with the opposite party and to that end he paid an advance amount of Rs.30,000/- to the opposite party. But the opposite party, in contravention of their oral agreement, supplied only the double coat and that too made of poor quality wood which developed some problems within few months because of the use of substandard wood. The opposite party denied the entire case of the complainant and according to him what happened is a different story.
7. Complainant produced 3 photographs of the coat which were marked as Ext A1(series). The photographs shows that the coats are made up of some white portion of some wood. From the photograph it is not possible to identify any defects in the coat as alleged by the complainant. He has not taken out any Expert Commissioner or an Advocate Commissioner to report problems in the coat and to show the materials used.
8. Except the photos, he has not adduced any evidence to show the agreement between them entrusting the opposite party to make the coats. Complainant in his affidavit has stated that the complainant and opposite party were known to each other and he approached the opposite party on that basis and the opposite party agreed to make the coats. The opposite party had denied the entire contentions. So the onus is on the complainant to prove his contentions by supporting evidence. There was no move from his part to cross examine the opposite party.
9. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show the payment of advance amount of Rs.30,000/- to the opposite party. He amended the complaint by filing an application as IA.164/2021 and carried out amendment adding “F\n¡v tNmZn¨n«pw Bill XcnIbpmbnÃ.” Other than this pleading he has not produced a single piece of paper showing the payment of advance amount.
10. Complainant has failed to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence. In the absence of any evidence showing the payment of amount to the opposite party and regarding the defects in the coats and the quality of the material used, we are not inclined to allow the prayer of the complainant.
In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 07th day of July, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President.
Sd/-
Vidya A Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Series( a to c) photos of the product.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost:
