DATE OF FILING : 15.12.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.277/2010
Between
Complainant : Ratheesh Joseph,
(Muttappallil House)
Secretary,
Merchant Association, Koothattukulam,
Koothattukulam P.O.,
Ernakulam District .
(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)
And
Opposite Party : The Manager,
Rainbow Trading Corporation,
Market Road, Thodupuzha,
Thodupuzha P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Babichen V. George)
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Complainant is the Secretary of Merchant Association at Koothattukulam, from June, 2010 onwards. There is a usual practice of distributing gift to the members by the Association and it was decided to distribute bed sheets with pillow cover to the members in the year 2010, which is having a cost of about Rs.400/-. When the complainant approached the opposite party for the same, the opposite party offered that they would supply bed sheet of having brand name “Red Chilly, Sweety Double 70” + 2 Pillow Covers”. It is a set having 70 inches double bed sheet and 2 pillow covers and having MRP of Rs.445/-. It is offered that the opposite party would supply the same at the rate of Rs.357/- per piece. The complainant ordered for 600 numbers of the same double bed sheet on 14.9.2010 and paid an advance of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party. On 13.10.2010, the opposite party supplied 600 packets of bed sheets and the complainant paid the balance Rs.1,64,200/-. When the gift packets were distributed among the members, a dispute raised between the members regarding the cost of the material. After that it is revealed that the opposite party supplied the bed sheet having a market value of only Rs.349/- per piece and the opposite party made belief that the bed sheet was having a rate of Rs.445/- and it was supplied for an amount of Rs.357/- after discount. There was an advertisement in the ’Vanitha’ magazine given by the opposite party which was published on the date of giving the order to the opposite party and after the delivery. It is very clear from the advertisement, that the MRP is Rs.349/-, but it was supplied for an amount of Rs.357/-, which is more than Rs.8/- as per the advertisement. If it was supplied as per the discount by the opposite party, the bed sheet would have a market value of Rs.261/- only per piece. So the opposite party have charged an extra amount of Rs.57,600/- from the complainant for 600 packets of bed sheet. So it is an unfair trade practice of the opposite party that they have supplied the bed sheet of Rs.349/- per piece to the complainant by making the complainant to believe that the price
(cont.....2)
- 2 -
of the material is Rs.445/- per piece. So the opposite party cheated the complainant and a loss of
Rs.57,600/- has been happened to the Association of the complainant. So it caused major criticism against the complainant between the members and directors of the Association. A notice was also published by the members and other administrative members of the Association stating that the
complainant has made misappropriation of money due to this. So it caused heavy mental agony and sufferings to the complainant and so this petition is filed for getting back the excess amount received by the opposite party and also for compensation.
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant ordered the bed sheet of having a whole sale price of Rs.357/- per piece to the opposite party. Eventhough the complainant requested for getting the same type of material which having same market value at the time of order, but the opposite party informed that they could supply only as per the availability of the same and it was also agreed by the complainant. So the opposite party supplied 5 type of bed sheet of about the same range to the complainant and it was also agreed by both parties to supply the same in the whole sale rate. When the cost of the 5 type of bed sheets are calculated, it became Rs.2,15,486/-, but as per the prior settlement, Rs.1,286/- was reduced from the price. The opposite party never supplied a single bed sheet having market value of Rs.349/- to the complainant. The bed sheet supplied were having quality and large pillow cover. It is also admitted that in the advertisement in ’Vanitha’ magazine, it is written that “Sweety Double 70” + 2 pillow covers, MRP Rs.349/-”, but the same bed sheet was not supplied to the complainant. There are 10 variety of bed sheets marketing by the opposite party. It is not technically possible to give the price of each material. The lowest amount for “Sweety” with pillow cover is Rs.349/-, but it varies upto Rs.695/-. It is also clear from the advertisement. The bed sheet given in advertisement with cost
of Rs.349/- is having small pillow cover and of 45 x 70 cms in the measurement, but the bed sheet supplied to the complainant was having larger pillow cover and its measurement is 50 x 75 cms. A letter was given to the complainant by the opposite party, stating the details of the supply on 27.11.2010 and the opposite party is not responsible for any of the relief sought for.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4(series) marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DW1 Exts.R1 and R2 marked on the side of the opposite party.
. The POINT :- As per PW1, they have ordered for 600 number of bed sheet for distributing among their members as a gift, and the ordered bed sheets were in the brand name “Red Chilly” which is having 70 inches double bed sheet with 2 pillow covers, the “Sweety Double 70” + 2 pillow covers”. The opposite party offered a price of Rs.357/- for the bed sheet having a market value of Rs.445/- at the time of ordering the same. An advance of Rs.50,000/- was paid to opposite party, on 14.9.2010 and Ext.P1 is the receipt of the same. The opposite party also received an amount of Rs.1,64,200/- after supplying 600 number of bed sheet, but while it was distributing, there was a dispute raised between the members regarding the rate of the same and it is revealed after investigation that the bed sheets were having a cost of Rs.349/- only per piece as MRP. But the opposite party is supplied for Rs.357/- as discount price. The advertisement given in the ’Vanitha’ magazine published in the month of November, 2010 and in the month of September, 2010 are produced by the complainant and are marked as Exts. P4(a) and (b) respectively, which
(cont.....3)
- 3 -
are also shows that the “Sweety Double 70” + 2 pillow covers” bed sheet were having a market value of Rs.349/-. Ext.P2 is the demand letter issued by the opposite party for payment of an amount of Rs.1,64,200/- from the complainant for the supply of 600 number of bed sheets with a price of Rs.357/-. As per the advertisement given by the opposite party in Vanitha Magazine in the month of September, it is clearly shows that the “Sweety” bed sheets range from Rs.195/- to 245/- and “Sweety Double 70” bed sheet range from 239/- to 349/-. The bed sheet which was ordered by
the complainant was also showed in the advertisement as “Sweety Double” with a rate of Rs.349/- and the opposite party supplied the same bed sheet with an amount of Rs.357/- after reduction. If the same bed sheet was supplied to the complainant, after discount, it would have only an amount of Rs.261/-. A notice distributed among the members of the Association because of the variation in the rate of the bed sheet, which is also alleged that the complainant had made misappropriation of money due to this. Ext.P3 is the copy of the notice. As per the opposite party who produced evidence as DW1, the bill supplied to the complainant for an amount of Rs.2,15,486/- for the supply of bed sheets and it shows the “Red Chilly” double bed sheet set which is having a range from Rs.435/- to 695/- which is marked as Ext.R1. A letter was written by DW1 to the complainant stating the details of the bed sheet supplied by them on 27.11.2010 and as per the details, they are having 3 type of bed sheets, “Sweety”, “Spicy” and “Naughty”. In Sweety range, the bed sheets are classified into 10 numbers as per the quality including large pillow, small pillow and considering the length of the bed sheet. The larger bed sheets are called “Sweety Plus” and large pillows are supplied with them. They are not able to advertise the rate of each bed sheet. The advertisement was given through KPB Agency and it was given 2 months before, so the rate also increased in the advertisement given in December 15, 2010.
As per the complainant, they have ordered “Sweety Double 70” + 2 pillow covers” bed sheet to the opposite party, with an amount of Rs.357/- per piece and 600 bed sheets were ordered. But in Ext.P1 receipt for advance money of order, there is no mention of the price of bed sheet and category of the bed sheet ordered by them. In Ext.P2 letter issued by the opposite party for getting payment of Rs.2,15,486/-, it is mentioned only 357 x 600 = 2,14,200 and a reduction of Rs.1,286/- and an advance of Rs.50,000/- was deducted and the balance is Rs.1,64,200/-. There is no mention regarding the quality or classification or the brand name of the bed sheet supplied by them. Ext.R1 is the bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant and it is admitted by PW1 without any dispute. In Ext.R1 bill, it is written that,
“Red Chilly double bed sheet set” with unit rate of Rs.332/-, 160 numbers with MRP Rs.435/-.
“Red Chilly double bed sheet set” with unit rate of Rs.340/-, 222 numbers of pieces with MRP Rs.445/-.
“Red Chilly double bed sheet set” with unit rate of Rs.355/-, 138 numbers of pieces with MRP Rs.465/-.
“Red Chilly double bed sheet set” with unit rate of Rs.371/-, 72 numbers of pieces with MRP Rs.485/-.
“Red Chilly double bed sheet set” with unit rate of Rs.492/-, 1 number piece with MRP Rs.695/-.
It was issued on 12.10.2010 and Ext.P2 letter issued on 13.10.2010. But in Ext.R1, there is no mention of “Sweety double 70” + 2 pillow covers” in anywhere on the bill. So no such brand name like “Sweety 70” + 2 pillow covers” has been mentioned in the bill issued by the opposite party in Ext.R1 or in Ext.P1 ordering form or in Ext.P2 letter for demanding the payment. The complainant never disputed about Ext.P1, Ext.P2 or Ext.R1 regarding the matter of brand name or regarding the
(cont.....4)
- 4 -
order of the item. So it is very clear that in the order form, in the bill and in the letter, they never mentioned the name as “Sweety double 70” + 2 pillow covers” bed sheet, which is not at all disputed by the complainant at anywhere and never challenged by the complainant. The complainant never asked for a bill with same brand name which have ordered by the complainant. In Ext.P4(series) advertisement given by the opposite party in ’Vanitha’ magazine, it is clearly mentioned “Red Chilly” and in a column, ’bed sheet size’ and its ’MRP’. There are 10 number of bed sheets with different quantity and that numbers are written in a range from Rs.195/- to Rs.695/-. It is written that Sweety Double 70”, Sweety Double 70” + 2 pillow covers, Sweety 90”
Family, “Spicy Single 60”, Spicy Single 60” + Pillow Cover, Spicy 90” family and Sweety Puls 90” Family. The bed sheet mentioned in Ext.R1 bill is “Red Chilly Double BS Set”. If the opposite party supplied the bed sheet of “Sweety Double 70” + 2 Pillow Covers”, that ought to have been written in the receipt given by them and in the order form and also in the bill issued by the opposite party. But in the bill issued by the opposite party, it is written as “Red Chilly Double BS Set”. That matter was not challenged by the complainant anywhere. It is admitted by PW1 that in the letter issued by the opposite party, on 27.11.2010, it is written that they are supplying bed sheets of “Sweety, Spicy and Naughty”. DW1 also deposed, in order to overcome the dispute raised in the members of the complainant’s Association about the rate of the bed sheet supplied and the brand name and details of the bed sheet also written in that letter. But in the letter itself, there is no mention about the “Red Chilly Double BS Set” which is written in Ext.R1.
So it is very clear that the rate of bed sheets supplied by the opposite party to the complainant as per Ext.R1 are varies from, Rs.435/- to Rs.695/-, also in five categories. As per the complainant, the order given by them are of Rs.357/- and Ext.P2 letter written by the opposite party also shows that they have issued bed sheets of Rs.357/- with 600 number of pieces. So Ext.R1 and Ext.P2 letter for getting the payment are entirely different. It is admitted by the opposite party themselves that they are supplying “Sweety bed sheet” and they are advertised like that and Ext.R2 letter also shows the same and it was supplied to the complainant. But in Ext.R1 bill, there is no mention of “Sweety Bed Sheet” and it is also quite different. So it is very clear that, the advertisement given by the opposite party is against the supply made by them and the market value of the material. They are not supplying the material as per the advertisement and as per the brand name given in the advertisement. But there is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that they have ordered for such a bed sheet named, “Sweety Double 70” + 2 pillow covers” to the opposite party. Eventhough the opposite party never written the same in the order form, the complainant never challenged the same before the Forum. The complainant never tried to produce any witness to show that they have ordered for “Sweety Double 70” + 2 pillow covers” bed sheets. Without any dispute, they have paid the entire bill, eventhough in Ext.R1 bill there are five variety of bed sheets which are not at all in the quality and quantity in which they are ordered. The complainant never tried to produce any of the bed sheet received from the opposite party as evidenced out of 600 number of bed sheets. The opposite party produced MO1 to MO6, six number of bed sheets. The opposite party admitted that they have never supplied any bed sheet of the same to the complainant. So they cannot consider into an evidence. The complainant never produced any single piece of bed sheet to show the quality or the rate of the same. So even if the opposite party cheated the complainant by supplying bed sheet of lower quality by saying it is a high quality one, the complainant ought to have produced a piece of bed sheet for verification of the same.
(cont....5)
- 5 -
So the complainant never challenged Ext.R1 bill, which is paid by him without any dispute in which there is no mention of bed sheet ordered by them, and the complainant failed to prove any deficiency or unfair trade practice against the opposite party.
Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of July, 2011
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Ratheesh Joseph
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Darvy Jacob John
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of the receipt for Rs.50,000/-, dated 14.9.2010.
Ext.P2 - Copy of the letter from the opposite party to the complainant dated 13.10.2010.
Ext.P3 - Copy of the notice of Koothattukulam Merchant Association administrators.
Ext.P4(series) - The advertisement given in the ’Vanitha’ magazine published in the month of
November, 2010 and in the month of September, 2010.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - The bill issued by the opposite party, dated 12.10.2010.
Ext.R2 - Copy of the letter issued by the opposite party dated 27.11.2010.
