CC Filed on 16.10.2008 <br /> Disposed on 09.07.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 09th day of July 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 81/2008<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> A.V. Prabhakar,<br /> Cow Feed Transport – Contractor,<br /> No. 2416, Vivekanandanagar,<br /> Bangarpet – 563114.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. K.C. Prasad and Others ) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1.The Manager,<br /> Kolar Milk Union Ltd.,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Managing Director,<br /> Kolar Milk Union Ltd.,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Deputy Manager,<br /> KOMUL Camp Office,<br /> Bangarpet – 563 114.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate B. Kumar and Others)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay to complainant a sum of Rs.92,044/- towards hire charges for transporting cow feed in route No. 3 and to pay Rs.1,23,258/- towards hire charges for lending the car for field supervision from 01.02.2008 to 30.08.2008 with costs, interest and compensation, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That in the year 2005-06 the complainant was transporting cow feed from Cow Feed Depot at Rajanukunte to different milk unions in Kolar District, as per the contract entered between him and OPs. It is alleged that some unknown person had illegally took delivery of cow feed under an invoice No. 771 for 12 tons and under an invoice 507 for 4 tons and lifted the same to some unknown destination on 17.11.2007 and 23.11.2007 respectively. Further it is alleged that the complainant had not lifted the cow feed on those days under the said invoices. It is alleged that the bills for transportation of cow feed submitted by complainant were withheld by OPs on the suspicion that the complainant was responsible for lifting the cow feeds on those days and that he had not accounted for it. Towards the transportation of cow feed the complainant had claimed Rs.92,044/-.<br /> <br /> The complainant has further alleged that he had given on hire his taxi for use of OPs and towards hire charge a sum of Rs.1,23,258/- is payable by OPs and even this amount was not paid on the pretext of misappropriation of cow feed by complainant. He also claimed that he deposited bank guarantees for the due performance of the contract entered between him and OPs and the said bank guarantees were also not returned even after the contract period.<br /> <br /> 3. The OPs appeared through Counsel and filed their version. It has not disputed that the complainant had transported cow feed from Rajanukunte gowdon to various milk unions as per the direction of OPs and that the amount claimed by complainant was due towards hire charges. Further it is not disputed that the amount payable towards hire charge as claimed by the complainant was also due for having taken the taxi of the complainant on hire. It is contended that records disclosed that on 17.11.2007 the complainant lifted 12 tons of cow feed and on 23.11.2007 he lifted 4 tons of cow feed, but he had not accounted for the same by delivering the cow feed to any of the milk unions. Therefore, it is further contended that there was reasonable grounds for the OPs to suspect the bonafides of complainant and for that reason the bills for hire charges were withheld. Further it is contended that a police complaint was also lodged in respect of the alleged theft or misappropriation of cow feed from the gowdon of the Rajanukunte and that after detailed enquiry the police found that complainant was not responsible for it and some other person was the real culprit. Therefore the OPs contended that after coming to know the truth they have made up their mind to pay the arrears payable to complainant. They contended that there was no deficiency in service and that the complaint is not maintainable against them before this Forum.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit in support of complaint allegations. The OPs had not led any evidence within the time allowed. During the pendency of the case the Learned Counsel for the OPs contended that the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum and the remedy of the complainant if any was before the Civil Court. In view of the peculiar facts of this case we told the Learned Counsel for the OPs to make an effort for payment of the admitted amount due to the complainant, without urging for technical defences. Accordingly the Learned Counsel for OPs delivered two cheques to complainant and filed a memo to that effect and subsequently he also filed another memo along with a letter said to have been issued by complainant to OPs reporting full and final settlement of the claim made in the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. The complainant was secured and he was asked whether his claim was fully satisfied and whether he had executed the letter regarding full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant stated before us that he signed the said letter dated 30.05.2009, but he was not knowing the contents of the letter properly and without understanding the contents of the said letter he signed it. He stated that some amount towards interest and mental agony should have been awarded to him. He also told that bank guarantee of Rs.5,000/- towards the contract for running the taxi is not at returned.<br /> <br /> 6. We think as rightly contended by the Learned Counsel for the OPs the main claim made in the complaint is towards arrears of hire charges, therefore the complaint before this Forum is not maintainable and the proper course for the complainant was to approach the Civil Court. Therefore we think the claim of complainant in respect of interest and compensation for mental agony cannot be considered by us and this question is kept open and the complainant may approach the proper Court for the reliefs as may be advised. We also kept open the question whether there was full and final settlement of the claim of complainant as per the letter dated 30.05.2009 signed by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed holding that it has not maintainable before this Forum. The parties shall bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 09th day of July 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />