COMPLAINANT



BY-SRI. SONTHASUDHAKAR,

ADVOCATE, BELLARY.



















//VS//


SRI. N. SREENIVASULU, S/O N. NAGARAJ,

MURAHARI GENERAL STORES,

BANGALORE ROAD, BELLARY. (in CC-49/2009)



SRI. N. VENKATESH, S/O N. NAGARAJ,

MURAHARI GENERAL STORES,

BANGALORE ROAD, BELLARY (in CC-50/2009)



SRI. N. MURARI, S/O N. NAGARAJ,

MURAHARI GENERAL STORES,

BANGALORE ROAD, BELLARY (in CC-51/2009)



SRI. N. BALAJI, S/O N. NAGARAJ,

MURAHARI GENERAL STORES,

BANGALORE ROAD, BELLARY (in CC-52/2009).
COMMON RESPONDENT





BY-SRI.B.GOPAL KRISHNA,

ADVOCATE, B’lore. &

SRI.M.K.SRIHARI,

ADVOCATES, BELLARY.


TATA COFFEE LTD., 57, RAILWAY PARALLEL

ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,

BANGALORE: 560 020 – REPRESENTED BY ITS

GENERAL MANAGER.







//COMMON JUDGMENT//




CC-49/2009 is the complaint filed by the Complainant N.Srinivasulu against the Respondent Tata Coffee Ltd., under Sec-12 of C.P. Act for to award an amount of Rs.8,69,940/- towards cost of the Black Boards, carpenter charges with interest and for to award an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation and for mental agony with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.



CC-50/2009 is the complaint filed by the Complainant Sri.N.Venkatesh against the Respondent Tata Coffee Ltd., under Sec-12 of C.P. Act for to award an amount of Rs.10,47,990/- towards cost of the Black Boards, carpenter charges with interest and for to award an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and for mental agony with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.



CC-51/2009 is the complaint filed by the Complainant Sri.N.Murari against the Respondent Tata Coffee Ltd., under Sec-12 of C.P. Act for to award an amount of Rs.4,61,224/- towards cost of the Black Boards, carpenter charges with interest and for to award an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation and for mental agony with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.



CC-52/2009 is the complaint filed by the Complainant Sri.N.Balaji against the Respondent Tata Coffee Ltd., under Sec-12 of C.P. Act for to award an amount of Rs.11,46,654/- towards cost of the Black Boards, carpenter charges with interest and for to award an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- towards compensation and for mental agony with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.





2. In all the above said cases the Complainants are different, but all of them are claiming that they are the real brothers among themselves and running their business jointly in the name and style Murahari General Stores at Bellary. Their claims are on common grounds. These Complaints arisen on single transaction with the Respondent. The Respondent Tata Coffee Ltd. in all the complaints is one and the same. It’s defence in all the cases are more or less on common grounds as such all these cases heard together, disposed of them by this common Judgment.



3. The brief facts of the Complainants cases are that;



All the Complainants are real brothers among themselves. They have purchased jointly CW Black Board PF worth of Rs.15,00,000/- from the Respondent. Bills raised in the name of their business firm namely Murahari General Stores. Each Complainants have made use of the said CW Black Board PF in their respective houses for furnitures, box type ward robes, T.V.cabinets, wall mounting, dressing table, reading table etc. CW Black Board PF supplied by the Respondent attacked by borer infestation. The same was noticed by one among the Complainants. Immediately they contacted the Respondent firm. One person was deputed who inspected the borer infestation from the black boards, but they have not taken care of the request of the Complainants inspite of repeated oral and written demands. Hence, all of them have filed separate complaint for the reliefs as mentioned in their respective complaints.





4. The Respondent in all the cases filed separate Written Version on common grounds. It is contended by it that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter as agreement took place in between the parties vide Invoice No.48 dated: 21/04/2005 in Bangalore. The principal place of business of it is situated at Bangalore. The Complaints filed by the each Complainant are barred by limitation. After inspection by its Officials, it was noticed that, the Complainants have used veneer and/or frames supplied by third parties in conjunction with the boards supplied by it. In all probability on account of use of improperly treated veneer/frames purchased from third parties the borer infestation occurred. There was no defect in the products supplied by it. All other allegations made in each Complaint denied. Goods were purchased by Murahari General Stores. Hence, these Complaints are not maintainable as such, it is prayed for to dismiss all the complaints among other grounds.



5. In view of the pleadings of parties, now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that;





1. Whether the Complainant in CC-49, 50, 51 and 52 of 2009 proves that they are the real brothers among themselves and running collectively the shop by name Murahari General Stores at Bellary and purchased collectively CW Black Board PF from the Respondent worth of Rs.15,00,000/- and bills were raised in the name of their shop Murahari General Stores and made use of the said CW Black Board PFin their respective houses for furnitures, wall mounting, ward robes, TV cabinets, reading table, dressing table etc., but the said CW Black Board PF suffered by borer infestation due to low quality of black board and for manufactural defects, but Respondent not replaced the defective black boards or not refunded the cost of black boards to them inspite of repeated oral and written requests and thereby the Respondent found guilty under deficiency in service towards them?



2. Whether the Complainants of each case are entitled for reliefs as prayed in their respective complaint?


3. To what relief the each Complainants are entitled for?

//POINTS//


6. Our findings on the above points are as under.

Point No.1:


In Affirmative.





Point No.2:


As discussed in detail in the body of this Judgment.





Point No.3:


In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we pass the final order for the following;













//REASONS//
Point Nos.1 & 2: -



7. In order to prove the facts involved in these points, the affidavit evidence of each Complainant filed separately and they have been noted as P.W.1 in their respective cases. The affidavit evidence of Engineer who inspected the borer infestation of black boards fixed to the furnitures and other equipments in the houses of each Complainant was filed separately who was noted as P.W.2 in each case. The affidavit evidence of Carpenter said to have done the carpentry work in the house of each Complainant was filed separately, he was noted as P.W.3 in each case. Documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.38 in CC-49/2009, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.46 in CC-50/2009, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.40 in CC-51/2009 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.53 in CC-52/2009 are marked. On other hand, the affidavit evidence of Respondent firm Secretary by name M.K.C.Pai was filed separately in each case who has been noted as R.W.1. Document Ex.R.1 is marked in CC-49/2009 and CC-51/2009. Written Arguments filed by Respondent in each case.



8. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidences and documents filed by them in all the cases and points raised by the learned advocate for Complainants and the Respondent in all the cases at the time of arguments, we have to see the first objection of Respondent with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.



9. The learned advocate for Respondent in all the cases submits before us that, the CW Black Board PF supplied to the Murahari General Stores, Bellary in its Bangalore firm. Bills are also issued in its Bangalore firm. There is no office of it in Bellary as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present subject matter.



10. On the other hand, the learned advocate for Complainants submits that each Complainants are the joint family members residing permanently at Bellary, their shop Murari General Stores is situated in Bellary as such, this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter even though materials purchased at Bangalore. The condition mentioned in the receipts regarding jurisdiction is against to law.



11. In this regard, he referred rulings namely CPJ 2008 Vol.3 Page 118, 1999 CPJ Page No. 849 and CPJ 2008 Vol.3 Page 412. We have perused the relevant provisions of law as enumerated under Sec-12 of C.P.Act. In view of principles of rulings referred by the learned advocate for Complainants and also the provisions of law under Sec-12(1)(A) of C.P.Act as the goods purchased by the Complainants delivered at Bellary this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject of these complaints. Hence, the first objection of Respondent is rejected.



12. The second objection that was taken by the learned advocate for the Respondent in all the cases is that these Complainants are not entitled to file separate complaint for the reasons that the goods purchased only in the name of Murahari General Stores at Bellary. In this regard, we have referred the pleadings of Complainants. In each complaint, the Complainants have stated that all of them together purchased CW Black Boards PF by paying an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs and bills were raised in the name of their business firm Murahari General Stores and also pleaded that all of them are real brothers among themselves

13. In the circumstances stated above, even though complaint filed by each Complainant in respect of the CW Black Boards PF as utilized by each of them in their respective houses, but they have purchased it in the name of Murahari General Stores and they have given address in their each Complaint that they are running Murahari General Stores at Bellary. In view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that, there is no merit in the said objection of Respondent as these complaints are not maintainable. Hence, this objection of Respondent is also rejected.



14. Another point that was pointed by the learned advocate for Respondent is with regard to non-maintainability of the complaints as all the complaints are barred by limitation. According to the submission made by learned advocate for Respondent, as per Sec-24A(1) of C.P.Act the complaint has to be filed by the Complainant within two years from the date of cause of action, but in the instant cases, the date of purchase of CW Black Board PF was on 20/04/2005. Till 2007 the Complainants not pointed out the alleged borer infestation in the said CW Black Board PF. But on 07/03/2007 they wrote letter to Respondent vide Ex.P.1 in each case. Therefore, all the complaints are barred by limitation.

15. In pursuance of the submission made on this point, we have perused the facts noted in the pleadings wherein there is reference of letter Ex.P.1 with regard to noticing of borer infestation to the CW Black Board PF. So in view of the fact, the date of cause of action for to file complaint by each Complainant is from 22/01/2009 which is the date of legal notice issued for non-fulfilling the request of each of them as per letter of correspondence vide Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.7 as such, each Complaints are under limitation. Accordingly, we rejected this contention of the Respondent.



16. As regards to deficiency in service as alleged by each Complainant against Respondent is concerned, there is no specific denial regarding supply of CW Black Board PF to the Complainants even though it took contention that the bills were raised in the name of Murahari General Stores. In letters Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.7 the Respondent clearly admitted the supply of CW Black Boards PF to the Murahari General Stores at Bellary worth of Rs.15,00,000/-. It further admitted in those letters regarding the affecting of borer infestation to the black boards supplied to them. It got inspected through its officials. Under the said circumstances, the evidence of Complainants coupled with evidence of Engineer P.W.2 and the evidence of Carpenter P.W.3 supports the case of Complainants that due to low quality of CW Black Boards PF supplied by the Respondent got affected borer infestation.


There are no evidences from the side of the Respondent to hold that the CW Black Boards PF supplied by it might have affected borer infestation for the use of other improperly treated veneer/frames materials purchased by the Complainants from third parties. As such, we are convinced from the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 in each cases coupled with the admission given by the Respondent in the above said letters and non-extending its helping hand to cure the defects as and when prayed by the Complainants in oral as well as in writing is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of this Respondent towards these Complainants. Accordingly, we came to a conclusion that, the Complainant of each cases have proved the deficiency in service on the part of this Respondent towards them and thereby we answered Point No.1 in affirmative.



17. As regards to the reliefs prayed by each Complainant are concerned. P.W.2 said to be a Engineer inspected the materials of the Complainant in their house is not assisting us to estimate the loss sustained by the Complainants due to supply of low quality CW Black Boards PF by the Respondent. However, it is a proved fact that, the said CW Black Boards PF purchased in the name of Murahari General Stores are worth of Rs.15,00,000/- vide bills Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.31 in each case. We accepted the case of Complainants that each Complainant in the said cases are none else than the real brothers among themselves and they are collectively running Murahari General Stores at Bellary. There are no rebuttal evidences to reject this contention of Complainants. Therefore, we are of the view that, if assessment of loss as evidenced by P.W.2 and his report Ex.P.11 is accepted than the total claim of all the Complainants will be more than Rs.15,00,000/- which is the initial price of said black boards. As such, the evidence of P.W.2 and his report Ex.P.11 are not assisting us to arrive to conclusion the actual loss said to have sustained by each Complainant.



18. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that, there is no harm in awarding Rs.15,00,000/- to all the Complainants together which is the cost of the material supplied by the Respondent recoverable from the Respondent is the proper and reasonable order. As such, we have ordered the Respondent to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the Complainants collectively and rejected other claims of Complainant in their respective cases.



19. As regards to deficiency in service on the part of Respondent towards these Complainants, we are of the view that, a lump sum amount of Rs.3,000/- is proper and reasonable amount required which is recoverable from the Respondent by all the Complainants collectively. Accordingly, all the Complainants collectively are entitled to recover Rs.3,000/- from the Respondent under this head.



20. Each Complainants have prayed for to award cost of Rs.10,000/- separately. As we have already opined that, the reliefs required to be granted will be collectively and not based on each complaint. As such, we are of the view that, granting lump sum amount of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation charges payable by the Respondent is proper and reasonable amount. Accordingly, all the Complainants collectively are entitled to get an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of this litigation.



21. As regards to other claims of Complainant in each complaint rejected in view of the first relief granted above.



22. As regards to the rate of interest is concerned, all the Complainants collectively entitled to get future interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.15,05,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of full amount from the Respondent.