Monday the  31^st    day of October , 2011

in

between

 

                                                                                                                                   

          

                                                         O R D E R

The complainant case precisely is as follows: - The complainant is running a printing press to eke out his living. The complainant, as per the  agreement entered into between him and the 1^st  opposite party has to print the text books for the year 1999/2000. The paper for the said printing work was supplied by the opposite party. Initially, wastage of 1% was allowed to the complainant. Awfully, the paper supplied this time around by the opposite party was inferior in quality. Resultantly, the wastage of paper went up unprecedently. The complainant, vide letter dated 3^rd April 1999 unsuccessfully requested the opposite party to enhance the extent of wastage in the ’wake of the poor paper quality. However, the complainant got the obtainable text books delivered to the 1^st  opposite party vide Bill No.18 dated 31^st  May 2000. The opposite party accepted the said consignment. Strangely still, the opposite party afterward intimated the complainant that he should have effected delivery of the entire amount of text books, as such the delivered consignment could not be accepted. The opposite party alleged that the complainant was holding 486.271 reems of paper as unused and directed the complainant to hand back the same forth with. As a matter of fact, the no scrap of paper was left with the complainant. On the said pretext, the opposite party hasn’t settled the complainant’s bill yet. What is more, the 1^st  opposite party has demanded Rs.414534/-(Rupees Four lakhs fourteen thousand  five hundred  and thirty four only ) from the complainant as the value of the paper allegedly in the possession of the complainant. The 1^st opposite party has adopted hasty steps to realize the said amount from the complainant with the aid of the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties. The dispute as to the alleged possession of paper or its worth has not been yet settled between the complainant and the 1^st  opposite party before any competent court or any such authority. In this context, the opposite parties attempt to invoke Revenue Recovery Act against the complainant is illegal. Even if any amount is due from the complainant, the same is woefully barred by limitation. The commission and omission of the opposite parties inflicted incalculable mental agony to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.

2. On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The crux of the contentions of the 1^st  opposite party is that the quality of the papers provided to the complainant for printing text books was checked and cross checked before the delivery of the same. As such, chances of paper being inferior quality are slighter. As per the terms of the agreement, the text books entrusted to the complainant to  get them printed have to be produced on or before 31^st  March 1999. The opposite party is not responsible for the supply if any made by the complainant thereafter, the opposite party fervently contends. The opposite party further contends that the printing charge of Rs.828612/-(Rupees Eight lakhs twenty eight thousand and Six hundred and Twelve only ) was already paid to the complainant. According to the opposite party, the accounts could not be settled, for the complainant hasn’t still handed back the balance reams of papers left with him. The complainant has not still divulged in detail the fate of the balance stock of the paper and pulp board with him. In this backdrop, it is possible to assume that the complainant has misused the balance ream of papers left with him, the opposite party alleges. In the agreement nothing is there to the effect that· the dispute if any, wises between the complainant and the opposite party is to be settled before a competent court. The opposite party never inflicted mental agony to the complainant. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost, the opposite party argues. The 3^rd opposite party contends that the recovery proceeding against the complainant is not illegal . Neither the opposite parties nor their staffs threatened the complainant. The opposite parties were only performing their part of the duty. The complainant is disentitled to any relief; the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

             3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant,

and the documents Exbts Al to A2 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties  no evidence has been adduced.

            4. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the issues that come

up before us for consideration are:-

               (a) Whether the complainant holds any balance reams of paper with him?

               (b) Whether the opposite party inflicted any mental agony to the       ` ` ``                   complainant?

               (C) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

5.  Keeping in mind, we carefully perused the entire materials placed on record by the parties. On a closer scrutiny of the contentions put forward by the parties, it is unfolded that dispute with the parties has been deeply rooted in their disagreement as to whether any amount of paper is left with the complainant, if yes, what quantum of paper is so left with him. It is pertinent to note that the complainant’s specific case is that the papers being exceptionally inferior in quality no residue is left with him. In contrast, the 1^st  opposite party alleges that paper worth Rs. 414534/-(Rupees Four lakhs Fourteen thousand  and  five hundred and  thirty four only)  is left with the complainant, and on that basis the said opposite party caused the other opposite parties to proceed against the complainant to recover the alleged value of the papers left with him. In this context, we are of the view that this Forum has no jurisdiction to look into the aforesaid dispute as to whether any paper is left with the complainant or the worth of the same if any so left with him. However, in our considered opinion, the service of the opposite parties is deficient to have proceeded against the complainant with out resolving the aforesaid dispute as to if any paper is left with the complainant and if some so remain with out resolving its worth. Taking into account, the particular circumstance, we hold that the complainant is entitled to relief.

      6.  In view of the facts and  findings  herein above, the parties may either  resolve the aforesaid dispute before any arbitrator or approach appropriate Forum to render the said dispute resolved. In the meantime, the opposite parties are restrained to proceed further against the complainant for the recovery of the material amount involved in the instant case till the dispute is resolved.

            Complaint stands disposed accordingly. No order as to cost.

 

 

                                                                                                  Sd/-Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi

Ext. A1            - Notice issued by the complainant to the 1^st  Opposite party

Ext.A2             - Demand  Notice issued by Revenue authorities