DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 15/11/2019
CC/280/2019
V.B. Raju,
S/o. Balan,
Kootapura, Kammanthara,
Vadakkanchery (PO), Palakkad – 678 683. - Complainant
(By Adv. V. Shanmughanandan)
Vs
- President,
Sowbhagya Cloth & Paper Bag Unit,
Koranchira (PO), Kizhakkancherry,
Palakkad – 678 684.
- Secretary,
Sowbhagya Cloth & Paper Bag Unit,
Koranchira (PO), Kizhakkancherry,
Palakkad – 678 684.
- Treasurer,
Sowbhagya Cloth & Paper Bag Unit,
Koranchira (PO), Kizhakkancherry,
Palakkad – 678 684. - Opposite parties
(OPs by Adv. V.N. Sheeja)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
1. Complainant is a manufacturer of cloth bags. He purchased raw materials from one Sowbhagya Cloth and Paper Bag Unit. Opposite Parties are the office bearers of the said Unit.
2. Briefly stated, complainant is a manufacturer of cloth bags. He purchased 57.400 kilos of cloth from the O.P. unit and later found these cloths to be damaged beyond salvage. There are also pleadings regarding calling of the complainant to the police station for settling the dues arising from said transaction. Aggrieved by the alleged supply of damaged cloth, this complaint is filed.
3. OPs filed version contesting complaint pleadings stating that they had not sold any textiles to the complainant. They have only arranged for transfer from one K.N.K. Textiles, Tamilnadu, to the complainant. The amount they had received was not for themselves but for the original supplier. When the complainant had failed to effect payment for over 3 months, despite repeated requests and demands, they sought police assistance. The complainant had handed over a cheque which was dishonoured. Further complaints before the police station bore fruit with the complainant paying off the dues. This complaint is a counter blast to the complainant filed before the police. Pleading thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Based on the pleadings and counter pleadings, the following issues arise for consideration:
- Whether the O.P.s had sold the cloth?
- Whether the materials supplied by OPs were defective?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
4. Any other Reliefs?
5. (i) Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to Ext. A3. Complainant was examined as PW1.
(ii) O.P.s filed proof affidavit without any documents. OP2 was examined as DW1.
Issue No. 1
6. In reply to complainant’s case that he has purchased 57.400 kgs of cloth for manufacturing cloth bags, the opposite parties objected stating that they had not effected any transfer of cloths by way of sale. They had made arrangements for supply of cloth from one K.N.K. Textiles in Tamilnadu. The payment effected by the complainant was meant for the said supplier and not for themselves. The O.P.s had handed over a white piece of paper with a number ‘40’ written in red letter on the left hand top corner stating the amount to be paid.
7. Ext.A1 is the original cash bill dated 2/11/2019 bearing bill No. 40. This is not a white sheet of paper as claimed by the O.P.s, but a cash bill with the title of the unit, its address, logo and other particulars printed clearly on its face. The opposite party had not raised any objection at the time of marking Ext.A1. We are unable to accept the contention of the opposite parties that they had not sold cloth to the complainant. It is also pertinent to note that the opposite parties had not produced any documents/evidence to show that the cloths handed over to the complainant was, in fact, supplied by a supplier in Tamil Nadu and they had merely handed over the materials to the complainant after receiving it from the said supplier.
8. We therefore hold that the opposite parties had sold the raw materials to the complainant.
Issue No. 2
9. Major grievance of the complainant is with regard to the defective quality of the cloths supplied to him. Per complainant, the cloths supplied to him were termite infested, muddied and beyond salvage. The complainant has not produced the said materials for verification nor had got a report filed stating the factum of damage. Hence we are unable to ascertain the quality of the materials supplied to him.
10. Oral evidence adduced by the complainant is also relevant at this juncture.
(1) He states that he had known the opposite parties for only one month before the transaction. The only time he had purchased materials from the opposite parties is under dispute herein. Relevant portions of the complainant’s deposition (PW1) are reproduced hereunder:
Page 2, lines 11 to 15: “FXnÀI£nIfpambn F\nbv¡v Hcp amks¯ ]cnNbamWpÅXv. Rm³ XpWn hm§m³ AhcpsS ISbn t]mb Date HmÀ½bnÃ. tIkn\mkv]Zamb kw`haÃmsX ]n¶otSm AXn\p apt¼m AhcpsS ISbn \n¶pw XpWn hm§nbn«nÃ.”
(2) Reason for not verifying the quality of the cloths/raw materials is as follows:
Page 5, lines 2 to 16 : “XpWn hm§pt¼mÄ AXn 4..Hm 5..Hm sI«pIÄ Dmbncp¶p. weight BWv t\m¡nbXv. km[mcWKXnbn aÁpISIfn \n¶pw hm§pt¼mgpw sI«pIÄ t\m¡mdnÃ. weight BWv t\m¡p¶Xv. fair BbpÅ CS]mSpIÄ \S¯p¶ Bfà \n§Ä F¶v tNmZn¨m Xangv\m«n \n¶pw XpWn FSp¡pt¼mÄ {i²n¡mdpv. Chsc hnizmkw DÅXpsImv t\m¡nbnÃ. Hcp sI«n\v F{X Xq¡w Dmbncp¶p F¶v ]dbm³ IgnbnÃ. XpWns¡«v shdpsX aS¡n AXpsImv Xs¶ sI«nsh¨v weight t\m¡n F\nbv¡v X¶p. XpWns¡«v Agn¨v \ÃXmtWm Fs¶m¶pw t\m¡nbnÃ. AXn\pÅ kuIcyw B ISbn Dmbncp¶nÃ. XpWn t\m¡m¯XpsImv Xs¶ XpWn F§s\bmsWt¶m, F§s\ BWv s]mXnªncn¡p¶sXt¶m AdnbnÃ. Rm³ t\m¡nbnÃ.”
11. We are unable to comprehend how the complainant, who had known the opposite party for only one month and with no history of any transaction with the OPs, would purchase cloths without verifying the quality. Such a statement, in our impression, is made only for the purpose of this case. Any prudent man, especially one who is carrying out a business, would in the normal course go through the quality of the raw materials purchased by him from a fresh source. Therefore we find the deposition of the complainant to be unreliable.
12. The complainant has failed to prove that the materials/cloths purchased by him was damaged and beyond salvage.
Issue Nos. 3 & 4
13. Consequent upon the findings in issue No.2, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 18th day of September, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President Sd/-
Smt. Vidya A.
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext.A1 – Original cash bill dated 2/11/2019
Ext.A2 – Original receipt dated 2/11/2019
Ext.A3 – Original reply dated 6/11/2019 to an RTI query
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 – V.B.Raju, Complainant
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 – Nisha, OP2
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
