BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE

Dated this the 13th March 2009

COMPLAINT NO.163/2008

(Admitted on 20.06.2008)

PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President
2.Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member
3.Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member
BETWEEN:
Mr.Ganesh K.S.,
Aged about 43 years,
S/o Late K.N.Seetharamaiah,
R/at Idyadka House,
Kalmakar Post,
Sullia Taluk D.K. …. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.Suraj Lal Shetty.)
VERSUS
1. The Branch Manager,
Campco, A.P.M.C. Yard,
Sullia, D.K. District.

2. The Authorised Person,
Campco, Kollamgru-Harihara
C.A. Bank Niyamitha,
Harihara Pallathadka,
Sullia Taluk, D.K.District. ….OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri.K.B.Arasa)


ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT;

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The Complainant alleged that he had mortgaged 454 kg., of arecanut and obtained loan in a sum of Rs.30,000/- from Kollamogaru Harihara-Pallathadka C.A. Bank, Sullia. On 31.1.2008 the above said arecanut sold to Opposite Party through the C.A. Bank. It is contended that the 2nd Opposite Party purchased the above said arecanut but paid the amount only in respect of 448.800 kg., of arecanut instead of 454 kg. And it is further contended that the C.A. Bank delivered 454 kg., of arecanut belong to the Complainant but there was shortage of 5.200 kgs., of arecanut with the Opposite Party. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties have adjusted their weighing machine and deliberately cheated the Complainant with dishonest intention and submitted that it amounts to deficiency and filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.490/- and Rs.25,000/- claimed as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed common version and denied the entire allegations alleged in the complaint and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum in view of Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act 2002 and submitted that the Complainant is the member of this Opposite Parties and hence complaint is not maintainable.
It is submitted that, the Opposite Parties registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act 1984 and purchasing the arecanut and cocoa from its grower members at its various branches situated at Karnataka and Kerala. The Opposite Party No.1 purchasing the arecanut twice in a week at Kollamogaru Harihara-Pallathadka C.A. Bank, Sullia. The C.A. Bank is the agent society of CAMPCO. The Complainant has mortgaged the arecanut in the said C.A. Bank and availed the above loan. The duty of the Opposite Party No.2 was to check the quality of the arecanut and to fix the price for the arecanut. The premises, coolies, weighing machine and godown, billing and making payment to the arecanut growers etc. is the duty of the C.A. Bank. The Opposite Parties making payment to the said C.A. Bank and 0.50% commission, Vat etc. on receipt of the tax invoice from the said C.A. Bank daily.
It is further submitted that, on 31.1.2008 Complainant brought the arecanut to the Opposite Party No.2 for sale and the same was weighed in the presence of the Complainant by the coolies of C.A. Bank in the weighing machine of the said C.A. Bank and weighed 448.8 kgs., of arecanut. The Complainant had agreed to sell the arecanut to the Opposite Party No.2 at the rate of Rs.93.50 per K.G. and received a sum of Rs.41,919/- from the C.A. Bank. At that time Complainant not raised any objections with regard to the fixing of price and weighing of the arecanut. The Opposite Parties submitted that, as per the weight of the arecanut the price was fixed the amount was paid and the Opposite Parties not cheated the Complainant as alleged by the Complainant and there is no deficiency whatsoever and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
(i)Whether the complaint is maintainable and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

(ii)Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?


(iii)Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?

(iv)If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?





(v)What order?

4. In support of the complaint, Sri Ganesh K.S. (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C6 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure.Sri P.Udaya Kumar, Branch Manager of CAMPCO Limited at Hubli, (RW-1) filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. One Sri.Damodhar Gowda (RW2), Chief Executive Officer of Kollamogaru-Harihara C.A. Bank – summoned witness of the Opposite Parties was examined and cross-examined by the learned counsels for the parties. Ex R1 to R4 were marked for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure. Both the parties have submitted written notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes of arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:

REASONS

5. POINT NO.(i):
The 1st plea taken by the Opposite Parties is that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act 2002. It is a settled position of law that, the C.P. Act is not in derogation of any other law, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint is maintainable. The issue No.(i) is held in favour of the Complainant.

Point No.(ii) to (v):
In the instant case, the Complainant alleged that the Opposite Parties by adjusting their weighing machine cheated the Complainant and there was a shortage of 5.200 kgs., of arecanut while selling the arecanut to the Opposite Parties.
In the instant case, it is not disputed that the Complainant mortgaged 454 Kgs. of arecanut and obtained loan of Rs.30,000/- from Kollamogaru Harihara-Pallathadka C.A. Bank, Sullia. But there is no document to show that the Complainant delivered 454 Kgs., of arecanut to the Opposite Parties. The Ex C1 i.e., the bill dated 31.1.2008 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party reveals that the Complainant Ganesh K.S. sold 448 kgs., of arecanut at the rate of 93.50 and Rs.41,919/- was received by the Complainant from Kollamogaru Harihara-Pallathadka C.A. Bank, Sullia. It is significant to note that the Complainant not raised any objection at the time of fixing the price and weighing of arecanut or at the time of receipt of the amount from the said Kollamogaru Harihara-Pallathadka C.A. Bank, Sullia. And further there is no document to show that he has raised objection to that effect. The right course is to raise a objection at the spot on 31.1.2008 while weighing the arecanut, then definitely the truth would have been come out.
It is the definite case of the Opposite Parties that, they have no their own branches or depot at Kollamogaru Harihara-Pallathadka C.A. Bank, Sullia. It is submitted that the Kollamogru Harihara-Pallathdaka C.A. Bank Sullia is the agent society of CAMPCO i.e., the Opposite Parties. The premises, coolies, weighing machine, godown, billing and making payment to the arecanut growers etc. are the duty of the said Kollamogru-Harihara C.A. Bank. The Opposite Parties making payment to the said C.A. bank and 0.50% commission, vat etc. on receipt of the tax invoice from the C.A. bank daily. Similarly on 31.1.2008 the Opposite Party No.2 weighed the arecanut in the presence of the Complainant in the above said bank and it was weighed 448.8 kgs., of arecanut and the Complainant has agreed to sell the arecanut and the Opposite Party fixed the rate of Rs.93.50 per kg., and he has received a sum of Rs.41,919/- from the said Kollamogaru Harihara-Pallathadka C.A. Bank, Sullia. When that being the case, in our opinion the Kollamogru-Harihara C.A. Bank is also one of the necessary party to this proceedings because admittedly the arecanut mortgaged to the C.A. Bank and it was in the custody of C.A. bank and on 31.1.2008 the said arecanut was brought from the custody of C.A. bank but there is no documentary proof that at the time of delivering the above said arecanut from the C.A. bank it was weighing 454 kg.
However, in the present case, the evidence of chief executive officer of Kollamogaru Harihara-Pallathadka C.A. Bank, Sullia examined as a witness by the Opposite Party before the FORA, the evidence of the witness is very much relevant in the present case. The Ex R4 i.e., a letter dated 24.7.2008 issued by the Manager, Kollamogru Harihara-Pallathadks C.A. Bank to the Opposite Party also place an important role in this case. It is relevant to reproduce the evidence of witness i.e., Chief Executive Officer one Damodar Gowda on 15.1.2009 deposed as follows:
“¤±Á£É R4 £ÀÄß ±ÁSÁ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ PÁåA¥ÉÇÌà ¸ÀļÀå EªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:24.7.2008gÀAzÀÄ £Á£Éà ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À»AiÀÄÄ £À£ÀßzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤±Á£É R4(a) JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
ºÀjºÀgÀ ¥À®èvÀqÀÌzÀ°è PÁåA¥ÉÇÌà PÀA¥À¤AiÀĪÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ºÀjºÀgÀ ¥À®èvÀqÀÌzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ UÉÆÃqˤ£À°è ¦0iÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ CrPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÁgÀzÀ°è CAzÀgÉ ¹Ã¸À£ï£À°è JgÀqÀĨÁj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G½zÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è MAzÀĨÁj CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Rjâ¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀĪÀgÀÄ CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Rjâ¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¸ÀA¸ÉܬÄAzÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀåQÛ CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Rjâ¸À®Ä §gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ªÉÄð£À C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnUÉ §AzÀÄ CrPÉAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¹gÀĪÀÅzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnAiÀÄ°è UÉÆÃqË£À£À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀÆPÀªÀiÁrzÀ AiÀÄAvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÆ°UÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀĪÀÅzÁVzÉ. DrPÉ ªÀiÁgÁlªÀiÁrzÀªÀjUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnAiÀĪÀgÉà ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÁªÀÅ F jÃw ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀĪÀjUÉ MzÀV¹zÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ±ÉÃPÀqÁ:½% PÀ«ÄµÀ£À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnAiÀÄÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ PÀ«Ä±À£ï KeÉAmï ¸ÉƸÉÊn DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÉÃgÀªÁV CrPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä PÀÆ°UÁgÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ vÀÆPÀzÀ AiÀÄAvÀæzÀ°è vÀÆPÀªÀiÁr ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀªÉà ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. D §UÉÎ gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉâPÉUÉ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ CzÀÄ ¤±Á£É R3 DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. D gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ°è ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¸À» EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁlªÀiÁr ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¢£À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
vÀÆPÀzÀ AiÀÄAvÀæªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnAiÀÄ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CzÀÄ E¯ÉPÁÖç¤Pï AiÀÄAvÀæªÁzÀÝjAzÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß CqÀÓ¸ïÖªÉÄAmï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä AiÀiÁjUÀÆ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è”.
In cross-examination he has deposed as follows:
“UÉÆÃqË£ï £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnAiÀÄ D¦üù£À §®§¢UÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÁªÀÅ CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁlªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ UÉÆÃqË£ï£À°è EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnAiÀÄ°è CqÀªÀŪÀiÁr ¯ÉÆãÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ, CzÀÄ gÀÆ.30,000/-ªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß F PÉùUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀiÁgÁlªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è wÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ CqÀªÀŪÀiÁrzÀ F CrPÉUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnAiÀÄ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ UÉÆÃqË£ï£À°è EzÀݪÀÅ. DqÀªÀÅ ªÀiÁrzÀ CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ°è ElÄÖPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉÃPÉAzÀgÉ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw¹zÉà EzÀÝ°è ¸À¢æ CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄlÄÖUÉÆÃ®Ä ºÁQ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀÆ°ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤±Á£É C2 £ÀÄß ¦0iÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¤ÃrzÁÝVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤±Á£É C2 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ 454 PÉ.f. vÀÆPÀ«vÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ UÉÆÃqË£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ MAzÀPÉÆÌAzÀÄ vÁVPÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊn0iÀÄ UÉÆÃqË£ïUÉ ¦0iÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÉà ¸ÀévÀ: §AzÀÄ CªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆAqÀĺÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F jÃw CrPÉ0iÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä UÉÆÃqË£ï¤AzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ £Á£ÁUÀ°Ã, £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊn0iÀÄ EvÀgÉà ¹§âA¢0iÀiÁUÀ°Ã ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÀªÀÄä UÉÆÃqË£ï£À ©ÃUÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊn0iÀÄ ¹§âA¢ ¥ÀǪÀ¥Àà J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ vÉUÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ PÀÆ°0iÀĪÀgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Rjâ¸À®Ä §AzÀ ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼À°è ªÀiÁvÀæ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
(ºÀjºÀgÀ ¥À®èvÀqÀÌ) £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊn0iÀÄ°è LzÀÄ vÀÆPÀzÀ 0iÀÄAvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. 31.1.2008gÀAzÀÄ ªÀĺÁ°AUÀ J£ÀÄߪÀ PÀÆ°0iÀĪÀjUÉ 80 PÉ.f. CrPÉ ªÀiÁgÁlªÀiÁrzÀ §UÉÎ gÀ²Ã¢ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. F jÃw ¥Àæw ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è PÉÆ£É0iÀÄ gÀ²Ã¢0iÀÄÄ PÀÆ°UÁgÀgÀ CxÀªÁ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É0iÀĪÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è gÀ²Ã¢ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸À®ºÉ ¸Àj0iÀÄ®è. ¦0iÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ CrPÉ0iÀÄ vÀÆPÀzÀ°è ªÀåvÁå¸À §AzÀ §UÉÎ PÁåA¥ÉÇÌà C¢üPÁj GzÀ0iÀÄPÀĪÀiÁgï£ÉÆA¢UÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è.
CzÉà ¢ªÀ¸À £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉƸÉÊnUÉ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä°è vÀÆPÀzÀ°è §AzÀ ªÀåvÁå¸ÀzÀ §UÉÎ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj0iÀÄ®è. CqÀªÀÅ ªÀiÁrzÀ CrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß j°Ã¸ï ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁgÁlªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ MAzÉà ¢£ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj”.

Apart from the above evidence we have reproduced Ex R4 i.e., a letter dated 24.7.2008:-

“jAzÀ,
ªÉÄ£ÉÃdgï,
PÉÆ®èªÉÆUÀÄæ-ºÀjºÀgÀ ¹.J. ¨ÁåAPï,
ºÀjºÀgÀ ¥À®èvÀqÀÌ, ¸ÀļÀå, zÀ.PÀ.
jUÉ,
±ÁSÁ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ,
PÁåA¥ÉÇÌà °. ¸ÀļÀå.
¸Áé«ÄÃ.
«µÀ0iÀÄ: zÁªÁ ¸ÀASÉå 163/2008UÁæºÀPÀgÀ £Áå0iÀiÁ®0iÀÄ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
-------
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀ0iÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ²æà PÉ.J¸ï. UÀuÉÃ±ï ©£ï PÉ.J£ï.¹ÃvÁgÁªÀÄ0iÀÄå EªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåAQ£À 2173£Éà ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁVzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ¤zÉðñÀPÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, vÁjÃPÀÄ 24.01.2008gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåAQ£À UÉÆÃzÁ«Ä£À°è CrPÉ0iÀÄ£ÀÄß CqÀªÀiÁ£À ElÄÖ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä 30,000/-ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸À¢æ0iÀĪÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:31.01.2008gÀAzÀÄ ¸Á® gÀÆ.30,000/-ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw¹ CqÀªÀiÁ£À ElÖ CrPÉ0iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQ¤AzÀ ©r¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸À¢æ0iÀĪÀgÀÄ PÁåA¥ÉÇÌà Rjâü PÉÃAzÀæPÉÌ vÀAzÀÄ PÁåA¥ÉÇÌÃzÀªÀgÀÄ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ ¨É¯ÉUÉ ²æà PÉ.J¸ï. UÀuÉñïgÀªÀgÀÄ M¦àPÉÆAqÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £ÀªÀÄä Rjâ PÉÃAzÀæzÀ vÀÆPÀzÀ 0iÀÄAvÀæzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä PÀÆ°0iÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ vÀÆPÀ ªÀiÁr¹zÁUÀ 4.48.8QéAmÁ¯ï CrPÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ EzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ gÀÆ.41,919/-ªÀiÁvÀæPÉÌ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
F ªÀiÁgÁl ¥ÀæQæ0iÉÄ0iÀÄ°è £ÁªÀÅ PÁåA¥ÉÇÌÃzÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ ªÀåQÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ0iÀÄ C¢üPÀÈvÀ ªÀåQÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà PÉ.J¸ï. UÀuÉñïgÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è ¸À¢æ CrPÉ0iÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀÆPÀ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ 4.48.8 PÉ.f. ªÀiÁvÀæ EzÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ°è PÁåA¥ÉÇÌÃzÀªÀgÀÄ vÀÆPÀzÀ°è ªÉÆøÀªÀiÁqÀĪÀ 0iÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀæQæ0iÉÄ GzÀ㫸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
PÁåA¥ÉÇÌà ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ0iÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ°è 2 ¢£À £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ0iÀÄ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ CrPÉ0iÀÄ£ÀÄß Rjâ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÁåA¥ÉÇÌà ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ0iÀĪÀgÀÄ zÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. G½zÀ ¥ÀæQæ0iÉÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ, vÀÆPÀªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ©¯ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀÆPÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ PÉÆqÀªÀiÁrzÀ UÉÆÃzÁ«Ä£À°è ±ÉÃRgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀªÉà ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ PÁåA¥ÉÇÌÃzÀªÀgÀ®è, EzÀPÁÌV £ÁªÀÅ PÁåA¥ÉÇÌÃzÀªÀjAzÀ PÀ«Ä±À£ï ¥ÀqÉ0iÀÄÄvÉÛêÉ. F ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ PÀ¼ÉzÀ 14 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ 0iÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀªÀĸÉåUÀ½®èzÉà £ÀqÉ0iÀÄÄvÁÛ §A¢zÉ.
Ewà vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,
¢£ÁAPÀ:24.07.2008
ºÀjºÀgÀ-¥À®èvÀqÀÌ

From the evidence as well as the Ex R4 proved beyond doubt that the duty of the Opposite Party in the above said Kollamogru-Harihara C.A. Bank was to check the quality of the arecanut and to fix the price for the arecanut. The premises, coolies, weighing machine, godown, billing and making payment to the arecanut sellers etc. is the duty of the Kollamogaru Harihara-Pallathadka C.A. Bank, Sullia. And it is further proved that the Complainant was not raised any objection on the date of sale and also there is no document to show that while removing arecanut from the C.A. Bank, the Complainant or the C.A. bank have measured the arecanut before delivering to the Opposite Parties. In the instant case, the difference is only 5.200 kgs., and the said arecanut was mortgaged much prior to the date of sale. And the weighting machine was admittedly maintained by the C.A. Bank, that being the case it cannot be said that the Opposite Parties deliberately cheated the Complainant by adjusting the weighing machine. There is no material/ cogent evidence in order to show that the Opposite Parties have adjusted the weighing machine of the C.A. bank and cheated the Complainant in this case. In the absence of any material evidence, it cannot be said that the Opposite Parties have adjusted the weighing machine and committed deficiency while purchasing the arecanut sold by the Complainant. Apart from the above, we find that it is the duty of the society to weigh the arecanut once again while releasing from their custody. It was not done by the society.
By considering the overall evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant miserably failed to prove the deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence there is no merit in this complaint. Therefore complaint deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.

6. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.


Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of March 2009.)



PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)


MEMBER MEMBER (SMT.SULOCHANA V.RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)


APPENDIX

WITNESSESS EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT :
CW1- Sri Ganesh K.S.
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex C1: 31.1.2008: Copy of the bill issued by the 2nd O.P.
Ex C2: 7.3.2008: Copy of declaration letter issued by the
C.A. Bank, Kollamogru Harihara Pallathadka.
Ex C3:17.3.2008: Copy of legal Notice issued to the
Opposite Parties.
Ex C4: 20.3.2008: Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex C5: 20.3.2008: Postal envelop contains the legal notice
sent to the 2nd Opposite Party returned
to the sender.
Ex C6: 4.4.2008: Copy of the reply notice issued to the
Complainant by the Opposite Party.

WITNESSESS EXAMINED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
RW-1: Sri P.Udaya Kumar, Branch Manager of OP's at Hubli.
RW2 – Sri.Damodhar Gowda - Chief Executive Officer of Kollamogaru-Harihara C.A. Bank – summoned witness of the Opposite Parties.

DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex R1: 8.12.1988: Certificate of Registration.
Ex R2: 31.1.2008: Receipt for Payment.
Ex R3: 4.2.2008: Statement of payment by the Opposite
Parties to the Kollamogaru Harihara C.A.Bank.
Ex R4: 24.7.2008: Letter written by the Kollamogaru
Harihara C.A. Bank to the O.P.No.1.
Ex R4(a): Signature of Branch Manager.


Dated:13.3.2009 PRESIDENT