IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 12th day of July, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 23/2020 (Filed on 31/01/2020)
Petitioner : Anoop Aboobakkar,
Shamon Manzil,
Puthanangadi P.O.
Kottayam – 686001.
Vs.
Opposite party : (1) Manomay Traders,
Palda Indore,
Madhya Pradesh Code – 23
(2) BMR Ranuka Food Products Pvt. Ltd
H No.16-1-72 Karima Bad,
Warangui – 506002
(3) VRL Logistics Kottayam
Market Kottayam,
Kerala – 686004.
(Adv. P.C. Chacko)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant with an intention to start a business for his lively hood entered into an agreement with first opposite party on 15- 9-2019 for the business of candies worth Rs.55,784/-. As per the direction of the first opposite party complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.55,784/- to the account of the second opposite party. The candies were received by the complainant through the third opposite party courier service after three weeks of payment .On inspection it was found that all the candies which were sent by the opposite parties were damaged and beyond the date of expiry. When the complainant contacted the first opposite party they told that the candies might have been damaged by the third opposite party. On repeated request of the complainant the first opposite party directed the complainant to send back the candies to them. As per direction of the opposite parties he complainant had sent back the candies to them. Complainant had spent Rs.3400 as freight charges for the same. Though the articles were received by the first opposite party they did not refund the amount which was received by them after delivering the damaged candies .According to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party he had suffered much hardship. Hence this complaint.
Upon notice the third opposite party appeared before the commission and filed version. Notice to the second opposite party is returned as unclaimed, hence it is considered as deemed service. In spite of receipt of notice second opposite party failed to appear before the commission and to file version.
Hence, second opposite party is set ex-party.
Version of the third opposite party is as follows:
The third opposite party is unnecessarily impleaded in the case.
The third opposite party transported and delivered the goods to the complainant in due time without any delay at Kottayam in the same condition as it was booked. There was no damage caused to the goods in transit by the third opposite party. The complainant has not even made any complaint at the time of the delivery of the goods. The goods may be damaged as it was out of date due to expiry of time. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party.
In spite of the receipt of notice from the commission complainant failed to file proof affidavit or to adduce oral evidence. Hence the documents filed by the complainant along with the complaint is marked as exhibit A1 and A2. Third opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked exhibit B1.
Points for consideration.
(1)Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs by proving deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
The specific case of the complainant is that to start a business for his lively hood entered into an agreement with first opposite party on 15-9-2019 for the business of candies and he had paid Rs.55784 to the account of the second opposite party as directed by the first opposite party. Though the first opposite party sent the candy through the third opposite party it was damaged as it was out of date due to expiry of time. It is proved by Exhibit A2 that the complainant had paid Rs.55,784/- to the first opposite party towards the price of the candies on 16-9-2019.
Exhibit A1 proves that on 18-10-2019, the complainant has entrusted consignment to the third opposite party to deliver the same to the first opposite party. Though the complainant submitted that the candies which were sent by the first opposite party through the third opposite party is damaged as it was out of date due to expiry of time , but he did not adduce an evidence to prove the same. On perusal of Exhibit A2 we can see that on 18-10 -19 the complainant sent 15 CB books to the first opposite party through the third opposite party. On evaluation of available evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant failed
t prove his case with cogent evidence and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12th day of July, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of bill dtd.18-10-19 issued by 3rd opposite party
A2 – Copy of invoice dtd.16-09-19
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of invoice dtd.18-10-19
By Order
Assistant Registrar
