By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant had purchased granites and cement from the shop of the Opposite Party for the construction of his house. Among 5 bags of cement purchased on 05.03.2019, 3 bags of cement became hard and useless. When he contacted the Opposite Party to replace those cement, he assured replacement on intimating the dealer and the manufacturing company. When the Complainant waiting for the reply from the Opposite Party, he wants 2 bags of cement and so, he gave Rs.840/- to the Opposite Party towards the price of 2 bags of cement. But, when he brought the goods auto and asked for GST bill, the Opposite Party reluctant to give the cement. Therefore, the Complainant compelled to stop the construction of the house and to give coolie to the workers. So, the Complainant suffered mental pain. He has also lost Rs.2,000/- which was paid to the workers, Rs.1,287/- which is the cost of the damaged cement and Rs.840/- which was paid to the Opposite Party for two bags of cement. Hence this complaint to get Rs.2127/- as the price of the 5 bags cement and compensation of Rs.10,000/- with the litigation expenses.
3. The Opposite Party appeared and filed version which in short is as follows:-
He disputed the bill allegedly received when the Complainant purchased 5 bags of cement on 05.03.2019 from his shop. He has also denied that he received the price of 2 bags of cement from the Complainant on 03.04.2019 and he reluctant to give the cement. The manufacturing company is responsible if there is any damage to the cement. The purpose of this complaint is only to harass the Opposite Party, that too without impleading the manufacturing company. The Complainant filed this false case without keeping the cement properly and without brought the damaged cement to the shop. The Opposite Party explained all these in his reply notice. Hence, this complaint is to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings, the points to be considered here are
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party?
- Reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, OPW1, and Ext.A1to A4. Heard, both sides.
6. Point No.1:- The case of the Complainant is that he purchased 5 bags of cement from the Opposite Party on 05.03.2019 and 3 among them became hard and useless. His grievance is that even though he contacted the Opposite Party to replace those cement, he has not given fresh cement. Further case of Complainant is that on 03.04.2019 he gave Rs.840/- to the Opposite Party for 2 bags of cement and when he brought goods auto, the Opposite Party has not given the cement for the reason that the he demanded GST bill. On the other hand, the Opposite Party denied that the Complainant purchased cement from his shop on 05.03.2019 as per the bill produced and paid Rs.840/- on 03.04.2019. He alleged that the Complainant failed to keep the cement properly and if there is any damage to the cement, the manufacturer is responsible for it’s replacement.
7. PW1 is the Complainant. He deposed his case as narrated in the complaint. OPW1 has given evidence to support his case. Ext.A1 and A2 are the alleged bills dated 05.03.2019 and 03.04.2019 which have been received by the Complainant from the shop of the Opposite Party when he purchased 5 bags of cement on 05.03.2019 and paid Rs.840/- on 03.04.2019 for the price of 2 bags of cement. The specific case of Complainant is that he purchased 5 bags of cement on 05.03.2019 as per Ext.A1 bill and paid Rs.840/- on 03.04.2019 for 2 bags of cement as per Ext.A2 bill. The Opposite Party denied that the Complainant purchased 5 bags of cement from his shop and paid Rs.840/- to him for 2 bags of cement. He disputed the genuineness of Ext.A1 and A2. On perusal, it can be seen that Ext.A1 and A2 are not bills. Those are only quotations issued before a purchase. Moreover Ext.A1 and A2 do not show that those were issued from the shop of Opposite Party. Those documents do not contain the name of the shop of the opposite Party. So, there is no indication to show that Ext.A1 and A2 were issued from the shop of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party disputed Ext.A1 and A2. Therefore without any proper bills, it cannot be held that the Complainant had purchased cement from the shop of the Opposite Party and paid cash to Opposite Party as per Ext.A1 and A2, quotations. Before filing this complaint, the Complainant issued a lawyer notice to the Opposite Party. Ext.A3 is the copy of the notice. The Opposite Party had sent Ext.A4 reply disputing the transactions. Therefore, there are no materials here to prove that the Complainant has purchased 5 bags of cement from the shop of Opposite Party and paid Rs. 840/- to the Opposite Party for 2 bags of cement as alleged. So, it cannot be held that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. So the point is answered against the Complainant.
8. Point No.2: Since Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of August 2022.
Date of Filing:-15.11.2019.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Ibrahim. Ex-CRPF.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. K. P. Rafeek. Business.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Quotation. Dt:05.03.2019.
A2. Quotation. Dt:03.04.2019.
A3. Copy of Lawyer Notice. Dt:10.04.2019.
A4. Reply Notice. Dt:17.04.2019.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
