DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2023
Filed on: 31/12/2015
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC NO. 849/2015
Between
COMPLAINANT
Babu N.M., S/o. Mani N.P., Nadakkal Parambu, Kottuvalli, Kaitharam P.O., N. Paravur, Ernakulam.
(Rep. by Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil & Raja Raja Varma, Karippaprambil Associates, HB 48, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
M/s. Industrial Pipe Centre, III/163-C, NH17, Cheranelloor, Kochi. Rep. by its Proprietor Zakkir.
(Rep. by Adv. P.K. Aboobacker, Kombara Junction, Ernakulam North P.O., Kochi 18)
FINAL ORDER
Sreevidhia T.N., Member:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
Complainant had purchased Hindalco everlast 18 feet Aluminium colour traff sheet from the opposite party on 25/08/2015 for Rs.39,908.57. The total wight of the 16 aluminium sheets was shown as 144 kg. Then the complainant had worked about the weight of one 18 feet aluminium sheet as 9 kg and the price realized by the complainant is on the basis of per kilogram rate of Rs.27,714/-.
On verification it is found that the weight of each aluminium sheet is only 8.880 kg. Complainant had purchased one 18 feet Hindalco everlast aluminium sheet from AV Thomas & Ltd. on 18/09/2015 as per invoice No. 285. In the said bill the weight of 18 feet Hindalco aluminium sheet is shown as 8.800 kg. The complainant had given a complaint dated 01/09/2015 to the Legal Metrology Office, Kakkanadu. The office of the Legal Metrology Kakkanad had refused to receive the complaint from the complainant therefore on 09/09/2015 the complainant had given complaint to the Legal Metrology Controller through fax. There is no action taken by the Legal Metrology Department against the opposite party.
The complainant states that he had sustained monetary loss due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and the restrictive trade practice adopted by the opposite party, Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings to the complainant and to direct the opposite party to discontinue the unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice.
2 Notice :
Notice was issued to the ops from this Commission on 13/01/2016 and the opposite party appeared and filed their joint version.
3 Version:
It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant had purchased 18 feet Everlast Industrial aluminium traffroid sheet 16 No.s from the opposite party on 25/08/2015. The order was placed and the goods were purchased through one Mr. Joy, an auto driver. The person named Babu was not directly known to the opposite party. But the person named Joy was well known to the opposite party. As per the request of Joy opposite party had given the sheet on condition that the said Joy would deliver the money within two weeks. When he did not get the money after two weeks, Joy had approached the complainant and the complainant had paid Rs.10,000/- to Joy. One week later he had paid another Rs.10,000/-. After that Joy did not get any response from the complainant so he approached the complainant directly and he was informed that there is a difference in weight of the sheet purchased from the opposite party and hence a complaint was lodged with the Legal Metrology Department. Babu also said that payment will be made after receiving the report from the Legal Metrology Department. The Legal Metrolofy Department had conducted a local inspection at the establishment of the opposite party. They had checked the weighing machine/Thulasu/Trasu of the opposite party and were convinced that there was nothing wrong with it. After the inspection of the Legal Metrology Depart, the opposite paty had contacted the complainant (Babu) and had demanded the balance amount. In order to avoid a dispute the opposite party had put forward two proposals before Babu for settlement. The complainant had not accepted the two proposals. The opposite party contented that they have not received the remaining Rs.27,000/- from the complainant. The opposite party’s main contentions are as follows:
- There will be a weight difference between each batch of aluminium sheet. To prove this fact the opposite party had produced Exbt. B1 Brochure.
- The opposite party sells aluminium sheets by weighing and by calculating price per kilogtam. The sheets which are sold in total, shall show a slight difference in weight if they weight individually.
- The aluminium sheet were delivered to the complainant Babu’s site without costing a single penny to the complainant.
- If the aluminium sheets supplied by the opposite party were found to be less in weight the complainant could not sent it back or could have asked to the opposite party to refuse it. The complainant had never asked for return of the sheets
- It is not the business practice of the opposite party to tamper with measures and weights.
4 Evidence:
Evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt A1 to A3. Complainant is cross examined by the opposite party’s counsel and his depositions are recorded as Pw1.
Opposite party also filed proof affidavit. No documents are marked from the side of opposite party. On verification of the records filed in this case it is seen that opposite party had filed version along with two documents and the copy of version was handed over to the complainant on 25/02/2016 as per the proceedings dated 25/02/2016.
Opposite party filed argument notes on 15/03/2023. Since the opposite party absent heard the complainant on 09/10/2023. Complainant is directed to file argument notes. Argument note filed by the complainant.
5. Issues:
- Whether any negligence or deficiency in service is proved from the side of opposite party towards the complainant?
- Whether any unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice is proved from the side of opposite party towards the complainant?
- If so, reliefs and compensation?
For the sake of convenience we have considered Point No. (1), (2) and (3) together. Exbt. A1 produced by the complainant is a cash credit bill issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant as invoice No. 2865 dated 25/08/2015. As per the cash credit bill the complainant had purchased 18 feet aluminium color traff sheet 16 No.s (144 kg) at the rate of Rs.277.14 per Kg. for Rs.39,908.57. The complainant had also purchased 14 feet aluminium color traff sheet 1 No. (7kg) also at the rate of Rs.277.14 for Rs.1,940/-. The complainant had also purchased CC coil, PVC pathy 6” grey for Rs.1,828.57, Rs.994.29 respectively. Thus the grand total of the bills comes to Rs.47,000/- (including KVAT, CESS, loading freight). These items are despatched by vehicle No. KL.07BP272. Exbt. A2 is a cash bill (duplicate) issued by AV Thomas & Co. Ltd. in the name of the complainant as invoice No. 285 dated 18/09/2015 for Rs.2,585/-. As per this cash bill the complainant had purchased one everlast industrial troughed sheet (colour) 8.80kg at the rate of Rs.279.05 for Rs.2,455.64.. Exbt. A3 is a letter written by the complainant to the Legal Metrology Department dated 09/09/2016. We have analyzed the facts of the case, version filed by the opposite party, the documents and evidence from both sides.
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased 18 feet aluminium colour traff sheet from the opposite party on 25/08/2015 as per invoice No. 2865 for Rs.39,908.57. The complainant states that the total weight of the aluminium sheet are shown as 144 kg. Hence the weight of each 18 sheet aluminium sheet worked out to be 9kg (144/16) and the price realized is on the basis of the per kilogram rate of Rs.277.14. Later the complainant had realized that the weight of each aluminium sheet is only 8.800 kg. The complainant had realized this fact after the purchase of one Hindalco aluminium sheet from AV Thomas & Co. on 18/09/2015 as per invoice No. 285. In the said bill the weight of one 18 feet Hindalco everlast aluminium sheet is shwon as Rs.8,800/-. The complainant argues that the opposite party had committed negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice towards the complainant by showing extra weight in the bill and by charging extra amount ie. showing the total weight of 16 aluminium sheet as Rs.144/- per kg instead of the actual weight of 140.80 kg (8.800X16)
We have thoroughly examined the documents. The Commission have observed no irregularity in the two bills produced by the complainant. As per Exbt. A1 the total weight is shown as 144 kg. Rate is calculated as 277.14 per kg and the bill amount comes Rs.39,908.57 (144 X277.14 = 39908.16). No evidence produced by the complainant to prove that weight of a single aluminium sheet purchased by the complainant on 25/08/2015 weight only 8.800kg. Exbt. A3 is a letter issued to the Legal Metrology Department by the complainant on 09/09/2016. In the complaint, the complainant had admitted that the date was mistakenly shown as 09/09/2016 instead of 09/09/2015.
Exbt. A3 is a complaint letter to the Legal Metrology Office, Kakkanadu. Nothing has been produced by the complainant that the letter was received by the Legal Metrology Department. The complainant has not produced any report from the Legal Metrology Department to prove that the opposite party had committed unfair trade practice to the complainant.
During cross examination of the complainant, he also admits the following facts.
Q. 16 ഷീറ്റിൻറെ മൊത്തം തൂക്കമാണ് 144 കി.ഗ്രാം?
A. അതെ
Q . ആ തൂക്കത്തിൻറെ വിലയാണ് അവർ എടുത്തിട്ടുള്ളത്?
A. അതെ
Q. AV Thomas & Company യിൽ നിന്ന് കിട്ടിയ ബിൽ Exbt. A2 ആയി ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. അതിൽ ഒരു ഷീറ്റിൻറെ തൂക്കവും വിലയുമാണ് ഈ പറഞ്ഞത്
A. അതെ
Q . തൂക്കത്തിൻറെ വിലയെ അവർ എടുത്തിട്ടുള്ളൂ
A. ശരിയാണ്.
Even though the documents produced by the opposite party are seen ‘not marked’. We have verified the two documents since the opposite party had mentioned about these two documents in their version.
Document No. 1 produced by the opposite party along with their version is a copy of brochure of AV Thomas & Co. Ltd. In the reverse side of the brochure it is stated that there is a chance for +/-200gm variation in weight of sheet.
In the instant case the complainant has not produced sufficient documents to prove his allegations against the opposite party. The complainant has not produced anything to show that the opposite party has manipulated the qualities and weights in the bill issued by the opposite party.
In the absence of sufficient documents and also in the absence of any report from the Legal Metrology Department proving any unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party, the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 27th day of October,2023.
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
D.B.Binu, President
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence:
Exbt. A1: Cash Credit Invoice dated 25/08/2015
Exbt. A2: Cash bill dated 18/09/2015
Exbt. A3: Copy of letter to Legal Metrology
Opposite parties’ evidence
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 849/2015
Order Date: 27/10/2023
