B. Satyanarayana, S/o. Yadaiah,

age 53 years, Occ: Employee in N.G.R.I.,

R/o. Plot No 108, H. No 8-43,

Ravindra Nagar, Habsiguda,

Secunderabad – 504 007 Complainant

M/s Kemplast Products, rep by its

Proprietor, Mr. Lalith Jain,

Hill Street, Ranigunj, Secunderabad Opposite Party

1. The Complainant filed this case seeking a direction to the Opposite Party to refund of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of payment till the date of realization; to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards damages and loss caused to him; to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards special damages or punitive damages U/s. 141 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act and to award costs of Rs. 3000/-.


:2:

2. The brief facts of the Complaint are that the complainant approached the Opposite Party for the purchase of 10 Numbers of 8’ x 4’ Fabric based and F2 Grade quality Hylem Sheets but as they were not available in the market he was advised to go for paper based ones. The Complainant agreed for the same paid Rs.1000/- as advance. The complainant waited for one more week and when he visited the Opposite Party’s shop, the complainant was astonished to see that there was no material in the shop.



The complainant further submitted that the Opposite Party asked the complainant to pay Rs.9000/- more towards advance amount against the total cost of Rs.30.000/-. Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.9000/- and the Opposite Party issued a receipt dated 07.08.2008. After several representations, the Opposite Party sent the material on 31.05.2008, which were not matching with the sample and hence the complainant refused to take delivery. Finally the complainant issued a legal notice dated 28.07.2008 demanding the Opposite Party to refund the amount paid by him. The Opposite Party received the notice but neither replied nor paid the amount. Hence the complaint.


3. The Opposite Party in their counter submitted that no one in the market were engaged in the fabrication of 8’ x 4’ Hylem Sheets and only paper based sheets were available and that this fact was explained to the complainant. The Opposite Party denied the allegation that they had supplied spoilt material contrary to the ordered good and that the complainant without comparing with the sample provided by the Opposite Party , abruptly returned the good and therefore the question of refund of the amount paid by the complainant does not arise.


4. The complainant filed his Evidence Affidavit and relied upon Exs. A1 to A7. Ex. A1 is the Estimation of the OP, dated 22.04.2008; Ex. A2 is the Estimation of the OP, dated 25.04.208; Ex. A3 is the Letter issued by the OP to the complainant,

:3:


dated 07.05.2008; Ex. A4 is the Legal Notice issued by the complainant to the OP, dated 28.07.2008; Ex. A5 is the Postal receipt of the said legal notice, dated 31.07.2008; Exs. A6 and A7 are the acknowledgments of the Postal Departments, Dt. 02.09.2008 regarding the delivery of article.

5. Inspite of granting number of adjournments, the Opposite Party failed to file their Evidence Affidavit.

6. The complainant filed Written Arguments and also submitted oral arguments.


Points for consideration:

i. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party? and if so, whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation? and if so, to what amount ?

ii. To what relief?


7. Point No.1: Perused the material on record. Ex A-3 discloses that the complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- towards advance amount to the Opposite Party for the supply of fabric base F-2 grade, 3mm x 4’ x 8’ size, 9 in Numbers. In the same document i.e., Ex. A3, it was clearly mentioned that due to any reason the sample does not match to the colour and shade of the material delivered, the advance money of Rs. 10,000/- should be returned in full to the complainant.



8. The main allegation of the complainant is that the material finally delivered did not match with the sample and the goods were in a spoilt and ugly condition and that therefore he refused to take delivery of the goods.



9. Through Ex. A-4, dated 28.07.2008, the complainant issued a Legal Notice to the Opposite Party stating that the material supplied by the Opposite Party was not matching with the sample shown at the time of accepting the order and requested



:4:



the Opposite Party to supply F2 Grade quality Hylem Sheets within 10 days or to refund the amount paid him. The Opposite Party had received the notice but neither replied nor met with the demand of the complainant.



10. The burden is on the Opposite Party to prove that the material supplied by them are, as per the specifications, agreed by both the parties at the time of placing the order. The Opposite Party had not taken any steps to show that the material supplied were exactly the same as that of the sample and defects free. Inspite of granting several adjournments, the Opposite Party did not file their Evidence Affidavit and remained exparte. This shows that the Opposite Party is not only deficient in service but also callous and negligent in attitude. It means that the evidence of the complainant remained un-rebutted.



11. The Opposite Party neither supplied the material as agreed nor refunded the amount received. He put the complainant to mental agony. So we feel it just to direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.3000/-.



12. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party to refund Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with interest at 12% p.a from 07.05.2008 till realization to the complainant along with Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only), as compensation and Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards costs.