D.O.F:22/02/2020
D.O.O:31/07/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.34/2020
Dated this, the 31st day of July 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
BinuScaria, aged 39 years
S/o Scaria T. S.
Thekkedasseril (H)
Paankayam, West Eleri. P.O
Nileshwar Via, Bheemanadi Village : Complainant
Kasaragod.
And
Vinod M. G. aged 44 years
S/o George
Madathiparambil (H)
Proprietor, Bright Electricals
Vellarikund
Kasaragod.
(Adv: T.V.Vijayan) : Opposite Party
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
1. The case of the complainant in short is that opposite party is running an electrical shop. They known each other for ten years. Complainant entrusted the list of plumbing sanitary items to opposite party for the work of his sister’s house and demanded to supply Shakthiman PVC pipe for plumbing work on 16/12/2019.Opposite party supplied the articles and received Rs.50,000/- besides that Rs.6,000/- received for water tank in total bill for Rs.82,652/- Complainant inspected after one week. Complainant comes to know that the materials are localized and substandard quality but circumstances compelled the complainant to use those items to complete the work. The opposite party refused to accept the return of unused items of total Rs.5,000/- value. Opposite party denied the final construction work of his sister. Opposite party did not supply wall hang set 3 in number. Considering this difference in value of the item already supplied claims Rs.20,000/- for using substandard materials and Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation and cost of the litigation.
2. The opposite party filed written version denying the allegations. The allegations are specifically denied. The opposite party admitted that he knows the complainant not as a consumer. The relative of the complainant is the customer of the opposite party and he purchased materials for construction of new house. Materials worth Rs.61,683/- purchased by Sabu and they selected the items and paid Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party and undertake to pay the balance within one week. Opposite party approached several times for balance amount. Opposite party prepared the final bill dated 18/12/2019. But complainant sent a lawyer notice instead of sending money. Complainant has filed a false complaint to escape from the balance due. Thus there is no deficiency in service and prayed to dismiss complaint.
3. Complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as PW1. Exhibit A1 and A3 marked. A1 is the electric bill. A2 is the copy of the whatsapp message exchanged between parties, Ext A3 is the CD. Opposite party filed chief affidavit and cross examined as DW1, and one witness examined asDW2. Exhibit B1, B2 and exhibit C1 marked.
Points for consideration are,
- Whether complainant purchased the house construction materials from Opposite Party whether opposite party supplied localized or substandard items and thus whether there is any deficiency in service in supply/delivery of articles.
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
All points discussed together for convenience.
The complainant is cross examined by opposite party. PW1 admitted that, Ext A1 to A3 documents are not issued to the complainant but denied the suggestion that they do not relate to the complainant. DW1 further admitted the documents Ext A1 to A3 relates to the name of my sister’s husband. Authorization letter no date. He admitted no quotation given but orally stated articles worth Rs.75,000/-,Rs.50,000/-paid before balance due still admitted by DW1. No reply to lawyer notice. He admitted he is not aware of the quality of the plumbing materials. Opposite party is highly respected person in business filed admitted by PW1. Opposite party supplied all its items ordered within the time schedule. Suggestions of opposite party denied of liability are denied by PW1.
Ext B1 is the lawyer notice, Ext B2 is the bill. Exhibit B1 is dated18/03/2020. It shows one Sabu Joseph purchased articles valued Rs.61,683/-, for which paid Rs.50,000/- and balance payable Rs.11,683/- remaining payment as alleging complaint filing a case as a third party who is the brother-in-law of Sabu Joseph. Sabu Joseph filed a consent affidavit authorizing his brother-in-law BinuScaria to conduct the case against one Vinod.
The Complainant examined Sabu Joseph, as PW2 who is working in postal department. He denied receiving the bill for Rs.61,683/-. He admitted receiving the lawyer notice.
There is absolutely no evidence to show the locus standi of the complainant infiling the complaint. The complainant is not the aggrieved party. There is no evidence to show that his sister entrusted him (complainant) to construct a house for her or to buy construction materials for and on behalf of the bill produced by the complainant and admitted by him show his name of Sabu Joseph and not either the complainant or his sister. Complainant has no grievance that he is the direct customer of the opposite party or opposite supplied any defective material directly to the complainant or the subject matter involved in the case. Furthermore, opposite party sent a lawyer notice. Exhibit B1 to Sabu Joseph claiming Rs.11,683/- towards balance amount due towards quotation dated 16/12/2019 for which Sabu Joseph did not even sent a reply. If really, such amount is not due by Sabu Joseph, he would have sent at least a reply denying the averments/allegations. In the circumstances, the case of the complainant that his sister entrusted him the construction work of her house engaged in supply of materials or receive/payment of money therein. Hence commission is of the opinion that the complainant’s averments and allegations are not bonafide but an attempt to thwart/delay the steps to recover the amount due against Sabu Joseph by opposite party complainant is not able to prove the liability privity of contract. Locus standi of complainant in filing the complaint. Considering nature and circumstance, document produced, evidence adduced, the commission holds that this complaint is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.
In the result complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Bill
A2 – Copy of the whatsapp message
A3 – CD
B1 –Copy of the lawyer notice
B2 –Invoicedt: 18/02/2020
C1 – Commissioner Report
Witness cross examined
PW1 – BinuScaria
PW2 -Sabu M. J.
DW1 – VinodM.George
DW2 – Sumesh T.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
