Karnataka

Kolar

CC/15/2016

Vinayaka Enterprises - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.K.S.Ravindra

20 Jun 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 06/04/2016

Date of Order: 20/06/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 20^th DAY OF JUNE 2016

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 15 OF 2016

Vinayaka Enterprises,

Rep. by its Sole proprietor,

Mr.Ramesh.M, P.C. Extension,

Post Office Road, Kolar Town,

Kolar Taluk.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth.K.S.Ravindra Prasad, Advocate)         ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

The Managing Director,

Vedantika Foods & Papers Pvt. Ltd.,

S.N.38/25, Plot No.25/2, Datta Mandir Road,

B/H, Anuradha Talkies, Nasik,

Maharastra, India-422101.

(Placed - Exparte)                                        …. Opposite Party.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, MEMBER

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) has sought issuance of directions to the OP to pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest for the amount deposited by way of RTGS and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.1,00,000/- by way of damages, and Rs.50,000/- with 2% interest and Rs.25,000/- from the date of failure to pay principal amount for the mental agony suffered and as compensation, and any other reliefs as the Forum to deem fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    The complainant is to contend that, he has been running a small proprietorship of buying food products for his livelihood as a self-employment in his shop under the name and style “Vinayaka Enterprises”.

 

(b)    It is contention of the complainant that, on 02.06.2015, Sri. Nagaraj, sales man of Vedanthika Foods and Papers Pvt. Ltd., had visited to his shop and introduced about noodles and its other products.  And that also he gave an offer of discount on purchases up to Rs.2,00,000/-.

 

(c)    Further it is contended that, he had paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 03.06.2015 to the OP by way of RTGS to the account of the OP bearing No.035511031002, and the said RTGS UTR number is PKGBH 15154832464 and thus placed order for noodles. 

 

(d)    Further he has contended that, receipt of the said RTGS amount, was confirmed by OP through phone and the sales agent Nagaraj promised him as the noodles would be delivered within 15 days.  And that as they had not sent the noodles, on 20.06.2015 he wrote a letter to the OP in this regard, but there could be no reply by the OP.

 

(e)    Further he has contended that, by placing order for product he being a buyer, had become a consumer and after receipt of RTGS amount, as well accepting the order from him, as there was non-compliance, the OP committed deficiency in service.

 

(f)     Further it is contended that, he made several attempts by approaching the OP through phone and letter which was of no use.  And that, even in this regard on 03.03.2016 issued legal notice to the OP, which was returned as not claimed.  Thus the complainant has come up with the complaint on hand to seek the above set out relief.

 

(g)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i)    Broacher containing Advertisement of Vedhanthika Foods & Papers Pvt. Ltd.,

(ii)   Price list of Vedhanthika Foods & Papers Pvt. Ltd.,

(iii)  Xerox copy of RTGS receipt dated: 03.06.2015 issued by Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Kolar.

(iv)   Three Challan receipts dated: 03.06.215, 17.07.2015, and 22.07.2015.

(v)    Xerox copy of RTGS cheque vide No.196935, dt: 02.06.2015.

(vi)   Copy of letter dated: 20.06.2015.

(vii)  Office copy of legal notice dated: 03.03.2016

(viii) Postal receipts along with two envelop covers with acknowledgements.

 

03.   As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet dated: 23.05.2016 OP came to be placed exparte.  Hence the complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence on 28.05.2016.  And he also submitted his written arguments on 02.06.2016.  And on 16.06.2016 heard oral arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

 

04.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

1. Whether the complainant could be held as a Consumer?

2.   If so, whether the OP is guilty of deficiency in its service?

3. If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought?

4.  What order?       

 

05.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT 1:-        In the Affirmative

POINT 2:-        In the Affirmative

 

POINT 3:-        Partly Affirmative

 

POINT 4:-        As per the final order

                        for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

06.   The averments in the complaint coupled with the said documents and evidence of the complainant by way of affidavit have remained unopposed.  So, they are bound to prevail.

 

(a)    Even otherwise on going through the said averments and documentary evidence at the instance of the complainant, it cannot be disputed that, the complainant is a Consumer.

 

(b)    There is specific pleading in the complaint that, for the purpose of his livelihood, the complainant had placed an order for noodles with the OP, hence it would amount to self-employment and hence the complainant was/is a consumer.

 

POINT NOS. 2 & 3:-

07.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

(a)    On going through the documents it cannot be disputed that the complainant has deposited Rs.2,00,000/- with the OP through RTGS and the same was received by the OP.  (reliance placed on Xerox copy of RTGS receipt dated: 03.06.2015 issued by Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Kolar ). 

 

(b) On perusal of the documents it is clear that, in spite of several requests of the complainant, the OP remained silent and it was continued even after the service of notice of this Forum also.  This act of the OP clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 

 

(c)    Hence we are of the opinion that, the complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with respect to the deposit he made by way of RTGS with the OP together with compensation of Rs.3,000/-  further together with interest at the rate of 9% pa over this sum from 06.04.2016 being the date of complaint till realization for being recovered from OP.

 

POINT 4:-

08.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

(01)  For foregoing reasons the complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.2,500/- as against the OP as hereunder:-

 

(a)    The OP shall pay-back a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant in respect of deposit made by way of RTGS and compensation of Rs.3,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 06.04.2016 being the date of complaint till realization.

 

(b)    We give time of 30 days to the OP to comply this order from the date of communication of the same.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 20^th DAY OF JUNE 2016)

 

 

 

MEMBER                           MEMBER                   PRESIDENT