BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT: SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT.S .K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P.No: 403/2004 Dated: 28..04..2008 Complainant: G. Appan, 'ARAMAM' KRA-40, Kuravankonam, Kowdiar P.O., Thiruvananhapuram 3. (By Adv. Shri. V. Harikumar) Opposite party: The Proprietor, China Bazar, M.P. Appan Road, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. Vazhuthacaud R. Narendran Nair) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 01..03..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 02..04..2008, the Forum on 28..04..2008 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER: The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant in this case is an Advocate. The opposite party is the Proprietor of China Bazar. The complainant purchased some presentation articles from the opposite party's shop on 04..11..2002 for Rs. 305/-. He gifted the items to his sister-in-law at Thazhava in Karunagapally in connection with her house warming ceremony. When the gift box was opened it was found that the articles in the box were less in number, substandard, inferior in quality and useless. The articles were not the same purchased by the complainant. 2. The complainant approached the opposite party on the next day with the articles with a request to replace or give back the price amount. But the opposite party was not amenable for a compromise. Hence the complainant was forced to give up the articles there and left the shop. 3. Thereafter the complainant issued a lawyer's notice to the opposite party. The opposite party received the same and sent a reply with false allegations. Therefore the complainant has forced to file this complaint before this Forum for the redressal of his grievances. 4. The opposite party appeared before this Forum and strongly contested the case. The main contention in the version is that the complaint is not maintainable because it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. And also the opposite party contended that the complaint is vague and ambiguous, since it has not specified which were the articles the complainant had purchased from the opposite party and which of them were damaged. And also the opposite party stated that the articles in the box might have been damaged due to the reckless handling and unpreserved keeping of the article during transit. As per opposite party there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. Hence the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined as PW1 and produced one document which was marked as Ext.P1. 6. The opposite party also filed affidavit and examined as DW1 and produced 2 documents marked as Exts. D1 & D2. 7.Points to be considered: (i)Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (ii)Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party? (iii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? 8. Point No.(i): As per the opposite party, the opposite party was only a franchisee of M/s. Impex Elias 12/800, Manthara Road, Cochin. The franchisor is not a party in this complaint. The opposite party has produced the letter of understanding between the franchisee and franchisor. The franchisee has only the right to sale the goods supplied by the franchisor. The complainant has not denied the argument of the opposite party, that the opposite party is only a franchisee. Hence in our opinion the franchisor is also liable for, if any, defects happened. The complainant has to implead the franchisor as a party in this complaint. In view of this Forum this complaint is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. 9. Points No. (ii) & (iii): In the complaint the complainant did not clearly state which were the articles he had purchased or which of them were changed or defective or less in number or inferior in quality. The complaint is vague and ambiguous. The complainant has not disclosed which were the articles he had purchased which of them got damaged. At the time of cross examination of the complainant the opposite party questioned about this matter and then the complainant answered that From the deposition of the complainant it is clear that he had admitted the same. The complainant produced the bill and the bill was marked as Ext. P1. The bill shows that the complainant purchased 4 items of articles for Rs. 305/-. But there is nothing in the complaint about which were the articles he had purchased. The complainant has failed to establish his case. This Forum cannot go beyond the pleadings of the complaint. Since nothing has been averred in the complaint with regard to the loss of the alleged articles. It is the duty of a bonafide purchaser beware of the quantity of the goods before purchase. 10. For the foregoing reasons this Forum find that the complaint is only to be dismissed. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 28th day of April, 2008. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER S.K. SREELA : MEMBER OP.403/2004 APPENDIX I.Complainant's witness: PW1 : G. Appan II.Complainant's documents: Ext. P1 : Cash bill No.A 5640 dt. 04..11..2002 III.Opposite party's witness: DW1 : P.K. Anandan IV.Opposite party's documents: D1 : Copy of letter of understanding dt. 01/04/2002 D2 : Copy of reply notice dated 19/12/2002. PRESIDENT.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
