This is a discussion on Creamline Dairy Products Ltd., within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD F.A.No.738 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.NO.555 OF 2005 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I HYDERABAD Between ...
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD
F.A.No.738 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.NO.555 OF 2005 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I HYDERABAD
Creamline Dairy Products Ltd.,
rep. by its Managing Director,
K.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o K.Narasimha Reddy
aged about 45 years, R/o 1-11-252/11/1,
Motilal Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad
A N D
Sri Raghavendra Agencies
Rep. by its Proprietor
S.Radha Krishna Reddy S/o Sarojan Reddy
aged about 34 years, R/o 1-2-106, Station Road
Mahaboobnagar Town, A.P.
Counsel for the Appellant Sri Kaleru Venkatesh
Counsel for the Respondent Sri K.Yadagiri Reddy
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDHULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER
TUESDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
This appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum-I, Hyderabad passed on 3.3.2006 in C.D.No.555 of 2005.
The factual matrix as seen from the complaint is that the respondent, an unemployee used to buy milk from the respondent by paying the required cost to the appellant in advance or at the time of purchasing the milk. The respondent used to sell the milk in Raichur on marginal profit for the purpose of his livelihood. On 7.2.2002 the respondent deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with the appellant towards deposit for distributorship for Raichur City. The respondent had closed his business on 31.7.2004 due to non-cooperative attitude of the appellant. The respondent had to bear the transportation charges including diesel chares. The respondent used to engage different vehicles for transportation of the milk to Raichur an other areas. The respondent used to reimburse the appellant the transportation charges whenever the appellant had his own mode of transportation except the transport bills of October to December 2003 and July 2004. In the beginning, the respondent used to sell 200 ltrs of milk and it was increased to 2800 ltrs. The appellant collected deposit o Rs.10,000/- for the month of August 2003 for the purpose of providing refrigerator which they had not done so.
The respondent had commenced the business through one B.Thirupathi Reddy who is the friend of the respondent and brother-in-law of Marketing Coordinator of the respondent. B.Thirupathi Reddy was a dealer of appellant for Mahabubnagar town. B.Thirupathi Reddy and the Marketing Coordinator of the appellant company, Devanath Reddy had grown jealousy and they begun to give trouble in transportation of the milk to the respondent due to which the respondent incurred loss to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs which he informed to the appellant company. The appellant company made enquiry into the matter through their Sales Executive Hari Prasad who reported to the appellant company that there was no loss to the appellant company by the development of business of the respondent. The respondent requested orally and in writing by addressing letters dated 17.9.2004, 16.11.2004 demanding for payment of the amount. The appellant company through their letter dated 16.11.2004 threatened the respondent by making false allegations against him.
The appellant resisted the claim. It was contended that due to mismanagement and inefficient conducting of the business by the respondent, the appellant company incurred huge loss and the sale of the milk was also dropped. The appellant sold the milk at an excess rate of Rs.one per every litre and thereby caused heavy loss to the appellant company whereby the reputation of the appellant company was completely damaged in Raichur area. The total account of the respondent was settled. The respondent is not entitled to claim any amount from the appellant company. The appellant company has been running business of milk products since decades. There were no complaints whatsoever against the appellant company.
Based on the evidence adduced and documents Exs.A1 to A13, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellant to pay Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The points for consideration are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant?
2) To what relief?
POINT NO.1 The respondent was appointed as distributor for the sale of milk supplied by the appellant for the Raichur area. The business was being carried on by the respondent with the understanding that the transport charges were to be borne by the appellant. Due to the difference that arose between the parties, the appellant had stopped conducting business of selling the milk in Raichur. It is consistent version of the appellant company that respondent had damaged their reputation by selling the milk at an excess rate of Rs.one per every litre. Letter dated 24.11.2004 addressed to the respondent shows that the appellant company, by the act of sale of milk at an excess rate at Rs.one per litre by the respondent, had incurred loss to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs and the same is the amount illegally earned by the respondent by cheating appellant company.
There is no agreement whatsoever in regard to the rights, liabilities of the parties. In the absence of any such agreement, the District Forum had proceeded to award as much amount as Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest. Absolutely there has been no document placed on record except the letters dated 16.11.2004 and 20.6.2004 issued by the respondent and the reply dated 21.11.2004 issued by the appellant. In all these letters, allegations, counter allegations have been made by the parties claiming amount one from another without basing their claim on any significant evidence. In the circumstances, the Consumer Forum cannot be made a platform for determining the claim in the absence of any primary evidence. Therefore, the parties have to approach competent court for the redressal of their grievance. In the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the District Forum.
In the result this appeal is allowed order of the District Forum dated 3.3.2006 passed in C.D.No.555 of 2005 is set aside. No costs.