BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri I.Siva Samba Murthy, B.L., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 30th day of April, 2002
CD.No.23/2002
M/s Sri. Balaji Marketing, Kurnool,
Represented by its Proprietor,
K.Surendra Reddy,
R/o H.No.354-7,
Nandyal Gatee,
Park Road,
Kurnool District. . . . Complainant represented by her
Counsel Sri.Murali Mohan, Advocate
-Vs-
The Marketing Manager,
Monalisa Infotech Limited,
Corporate Office, 1030/3
Navajivan Society,
Lamington Road,
Mumbai-400008. . . . Opposite party
O R D E R
CC.23/2002
1. The complaint to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.30,216/- being the amount retained by the opposite party, with interest at the rate of 36% per annum from the date of respective payments, compensation of Rs.1,510/- being 5% of business loss incurred with costs etc.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is unemployed educated individual during business of furniture at Kurnool for his lively hood, for himself as self employment. While so entire family members of the complainant are depending on the income of said business. As such he used to purchase furniture from the opposite party and used to do retail business at Kurnool for earning his lively hood. During the course of such business transactions, on 06.12.1999 the complainant had sent a DD for Rs.60,000/- to the opposite party for supply of furniture and the same was received by the opposite party. For which the opposite party supplied furniture up to the worth of Rs.52,499/- only, to the complainant leaving balance of Rs.7,501/-. It is also alleged that even the furniture supplied by the opposite party was of inferior quality for which the difference of Rs.5,465/- is kept with the opposite party towards such difference of rates. Again on 10.02.2000 the complainant sent a DD through Canara Bank bearing DD No.046543 for Rs.50,000/- which was received by the opposite party in response to which the opposite party supplied goods worth of Rs.33,750/-. Thus in all the opposite party was having with him the amounts kept as the balance of Rs.16,250/-. Representing the old figures of Rs.7,501/- + Rs.6,465/- + Rs.16,250/- totaling to a tune of Rs.30,216/- is pending with the opposite party. It is the further claim of the complainant as alleged that due to non supply of furniture worth of Rs.30,216/- by the opposite party having received amount in full resulting in loss of business to the complainant at 5% on the total balance and due to deficiency of service of the opposite party in supplying the furniture the complainant suffered mental agony business loss worry and inconvenience. Despite several reminders and letters written by the complainant demanding for payment of the said amount the opposite party is post phoning the same on some pretext or other. So also to the legal notice dated 03.12.2001 which was refused by the opposite party. Branding the conduct of the opposite party as amounting to deficiency of service he approached the Forum. Hence the complaint.
3. The complainant also filed the relevant documents mentioned in the complaint such as letter addressed to the opposite party by the complainant dated 31.08.2000 (Xerox copy), Ledger extract sent by the opposite party to the complainant dated 01.03.2000 (Xerox copy), DD bearing No.046543 dated 10.02.2000, Legal notice issued by the complainant dated 03.12.2001 (Office copy), Refused Regd., cover (Original) and Certificate of posting receipt dated 03.12.2001 (Original) etc.
4. Inspite of the issuance of notice the opposite party did not appear and got notice returned as refused. As such the opposite party was called absent and his service was held sufficient. Thereafter the matter was posted for complainant’s evidence. The complainant filed his proof of affidavit reiterating his complaint case. It is argued by the complainant’s counsel that having received the notice the opposite party failed to supply the furniture and returned the same. The opposite party did not care to respond the demands of the complainant including the legal notice for which he had grace to refuse. Similarly he has refused to appear and contest showing his careless and deliberate act of not caring to meet the demands of the complainant rendering him liable to comply with the claimed by the complainant with costs etc., on an overall scrutiny of material aspects we are of the considered view that the complainant claim should be accepted by directing the opposite party to pay the balance amount of Rs.30,216/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of legal notice i.e., 03.12.2001 till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs.500/- and costs of Rs.250/- in the ends of justice. Thus the matter is being disposed.
5. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part directing the oppsotie party to pay or to refund a sum ofRs.30,216/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of legal notice i.e., on 03.12.2001 till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs.500/- and costs of Rs.250/- within a month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictation to the Stenographer Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 30th day of April, 2002.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
