DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 8th day of February 2012 Present : Smt.Seena H, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of Filing : 18/10/2011 (C.C.No.175/2011) N.Arumugan, S/o.Narayanan, Kalathil Veedu, Akavanda, Mannur West (PO), Palakkad – 678 642 - Complainant (By Adv.Shine Francis) V/s Velayudhan,
Proprietor, Dhanalakshmi Electroplating Works, Dhanalakshmi Corner, Chandranagar Palakkad – 7 - Opposite party (By Adv.K.Sureshkumar) O R D E R By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT Complainant who is the owner of an auto rickshaw has entrusted some parts of his auto rickshaw for the purpose of electroplating with the opposite party on 18/12/2010. It was agreed to return it within 3 days after completing the work. Opposite party also issued a memo for the receipt of the parts. Complainant has requested for return of the parts on the agreed date as well as on many subsequent dates. Opposite party was always evading his request. Later on 6/1/2011 when complainant approached the opposite party, he was asked to pay an amount of Rs.2300/- for the work, which he did. Thereafter also opposite party has not returned the parts after completing the work. Opposite party admitted that the complainant has entrusted the auto rickshaw parts for electroplating. Opposite party promised to complete the work within 15 days. On 6/1/2012 complainant approached the opposite party and requested for a duplicate bill stating original has been lost and hence he could not raise the amount. Opposite party then issued a duplicate bill tracing the original bill book. Complainant has neither paid the amount or taken back the electroplated parts. At the time of taking the order, opposite party has issued a memo noting the parts received and the bill amount. If the parties paid any advance amount, it would have noted in the bill and receipt would have issued. If full amount is paid the cash receipt will be given to the party. In this case, complainant has not paid any amount towards the work. Further complainant has issued a lawyer notice stating untrue facts for which opposite party issued reply stating the true facts. According to opposite party complainant failed to show that the amount was actually paid by him and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. Both parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 to A4 marked. Ext.B1 & B2 also marked. Issues for consideration are 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ? 2. If so, what the relief and cost ? Issue No.1 & 2 The specific case of the complainant is that opposite party failed to return the electroplated parts of the auto rickshaw which was entrusted to opposite party on 18/12/2010 for electroplating. According to him, he has already paid an amount of Rs.2300/- for the work. Opposite party on the other hand, contented that though the parts were ready for delivery, the complainant has not paid the charges and taken back the electroplated parts. Heard both parties and has gone through the evidence on record. It is an admitted fact that complainant has entrusted the parts for electroplating with opposite party on 18/12/10. Ext.A1 is the memo issued for the receipt of the parts. As per the version of the opposite party, in the said memo dated 18/12/10 the parts received as well as the amount for electroplating is noted. But going through Ext.A1 makes it clear that only parts received is mentioned in it. So the contention that complainant requested for a duplicate copy of the memo as the original copy lost for raising the bill amount turn out to be false. If that be so, the 2nd memo issued mentioning the amount has to be construed as the actual amount received. Opposite party has produced a blank cash bill (Ext.B2) to show that if the amount is received opposite party would have issued the cash bill. A blank memo (Ext.B1) is also produced. The whole cash bill book or memo register is not produced before us to make sure what is the actual practice followed by the opposite party in their office. The facts and evidence on record lead to the conclusion that opposite party failed to deliver the parts of the auto rickshaw after electroplating though complainant has paid for the work. Hence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to return the electroplated parts of the auto rickshaw to the complainant within one month from the date of order. Opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceeding. If the order is not complied within the order period, complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party. Pronounced in the open court on this the 8th day of February 2012. Sd/- Seena H President Sd/- Preetha G Nair Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K. Member APPENDIX Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext.A1 – Original Memo dated 18/12/10 issued by opposite party Ext.A2 - Original Memo dated 6/1/11 issued by opposite party Ext.A3 – Copy of Lawyer notice dated 10/1/11 sent to opposite party Ext.A4 – Reply to Lawyer notice dated 20/1/11 Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party Ext.B1 – Blank memo Ext.B2 – Blank cash bill Cost Allowed Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings. | 
