Date of filing : 28-11-2011
Date of order : 03 -10-2013
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.329/2011
Dated this, the 3rd day of October 2013
PRESENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Shekara Acharya, : Complainant
S/o. Late.Achutha Acharya,
M/s.Panchamballa Furniture,
Panchamballa House, Ichilangod.Po.
Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv.Udayakumar.R.Gatti, Kasaragod)
The Proprietor, : Opposite party
Pyramid Machine Tools,
#65, Narasimaharaja Road,
Saraswathi Building, Bangalore. 560002.
(Advs. Sudhakara Rao.P,&B.A. RaviRaj,
R.Sureshkumar, Bangalore)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA,MEMBER
The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that he is a carpenter running a small scale industry in the name and style ”Panchamballa Furnitures”. Opposite party is dealing in wood working machineries and carries on business at Bangalore. On 25-08-2011 complainant booked and purchased four machineries from the office of opposite party at Bangalore for a total amount of Rs.1,44,000/- by cash. At the date of purchase, opposite party assured that the items will be delivered within 8 days from the date of booking and purchase. Due to the defective service on the part of opposite party complainant is unable to receive the machines till 04-11-2011. As a result he lost so many orders and failed to complete his work within time.
2. Complainant sent a legal notice on 22-10-2011 to opposite party to make good the loss he suffered. Only upon receiving the notice the opposite party dispatched the items through VRL Lorry, but not attached form No.16 along with delivery bill. Form No.16 is required to be attached along with the delivery bill for non commercial purpose the items are for own use”. In the absence of Form No.16, the same was detained by the check post authorities for 10 days. Complainant is alleging gross negligence on the part of opposite party in delivering the machine in specified time and caused deficiency in service that caused loss to the complainant.
3. According to opposite party the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the above complaint opposite party is a partner of the ‘Pyramid Machine Tools.
4. The complainant is a carpenter and is running his business under the name and style ”M/s Panchambala Furniture” which is an unregistered company. The complainant placed the purchase order in his personal name instead of his company name. The rate of Commercial Sales Tax (CST) applicable for the non CST registered holders is 5% of the bill amount, while for the CST registered holders is 2% against the Form No.C. Opposite party insisted for furnishing Tin/CST registration number in order to avail concession of 3% CST.
5. The question raised for consideration are:
a. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
b. Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs as claimed in the complaint?
6. Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts A1 to A6 marked on his side. Complainant is cross-examined on his affidavit. Both sides heard and documents perused.
7. Issue No.1 : Complainant produced the bill Ext.A1 issued by opposite party dated 25-08-2011 issued by the complainant in the name of opposite party for Rs.1,44,000/-. Ext.A2 is the original buyers copy, reveals that the furniture is dispatched through VRL logistics Ltd, Mr.Vasanthkumar as entrusted by the complainant. Ext.A3 is the legal notice and Ext.A4 is the acknowledgment card. Ext.A5 is the delivery cash receipt issued on 04-11-2011. Complainant sent the machine through VRL Logistics on25-08-2011 and the complainant received the consignment on 4-11-2011. There is a delay of 2 months 9 days in delivering the consignment. The plea of territorial jurisdiction is not sustainable. Eventhough the machineries are purchased from Bangalore, the same is using in Pachamballa Furniture in Kasaragod District where the Forum has jurisdiction.
8. No evidence is produced before the Forum to know why the delay occurred except the reasons stated in affidavit of the complainant and in cross-examinations on 15-10-2012 the case is posted for opposite party’s evidence, but opposite party’s counsel informed the Forum that they have no oral evidence. Deficiency in service on the part of opposite party is not proved before the Forum.
9. Issue No.2. As per Ext.A5, there is delay during transit. But who is responsible for delay is not clearly established during evidence before the Forum. On 17-07-2011, the case is re-opened for further hearing. Eventhough the party received notice on 22-07-2013 neither he, nor his counsel appeared before the Forum. We had given 3 chances for hearing. But so far, neither the complainant nor his counsel present before the Forum. As the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is not proved before the Forum. Complainant is not entitled for compensation. Hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 25-08-2011 copy of bill.
A2. & A2 (a) 25-10-2011 Original Buyer’s Copy.
A3.22-10-2011 Copy of lawyer notice.
A4. Postal acknowledgement card.
A5. Delivery Cash-Receipt.
A6.2-11-2011 letter sent by complainant to IAC (1) Bangara Manjeshwar Check Post.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
