BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :: HYDERABAD.

CC.NO.112 OF 2018 Between:

M/s. Rohit Extractions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Authorized Signatory, Mr. Kanhaiyalal Gupta, S/o. Gajanand, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Manager Accounts, Regd. Office at 5-9-91, First Floor, Brindavan Commercial Complex, Chirag-Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. .…Complainant And:

M/s. Amardeep Packing, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Kumar Vora, Having its Office at Premises, Bearing No.4-3-10, Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad. ....Opposite Party Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. Gopi Rajesh &

Associates Counsel for the Opposite Party : M/s. Amardeep Packing (PIP)

QUORUM: HON’BLE, SRI V.V.SESHUBABU MEMBER – (J)

&

HON’BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER – (NJ)

WEDNESDAY, THE 08^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE *******

(Per Hon’ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member-Non-Judicial)

Order :

1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section

17 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Party:

a. To pay compensation of Rs.28,00,000/- to the complainant for loss of 16,000 bags supplied by the opposite party and mental agony and loss.

b. To award costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The case of the complainant is that for eeking out his livelihood, he is running a small business by name and style “Rohit Extractions Private Limited” by having an office at Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad and the opposite party Company is situated at Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad and which is into the business of manufacturing BOPP/HDFE woven sacks and is known for manufacturing acumen bags and the opposite party approached the complainant with a request to place an order of “Daksh feed design cylinder dye” and gave a sample of the same, the said seeds are useful for the complainant in his business. The complainant after agreeing with the sample, had proceeded with placing an oral order for supply of 2000 bags. Similarly on 05.03.2017 and 15.04.2017 the complainant placed an order for 25,000 bags each and same was supplied, again on 25.04.2017. The complainant had placed an order and the opposite party had supplied total 5,300 bags worth Rs.1,58,992/- (Rupees one lakh fifty eight thousand nine hundred and ninety two only) and the complainant paid the said amount by way of cheque for Rs.1,39,992/- (Rupees one lakh thirty nine thousand nine hundred and ninety two only)

and balance was paid by way of NEFT. Subsequently, the opposite party made a request to the complainant to place an order for 1,00,000 (one lakh only) bags, but however, the complainant had placed an order for 20,000 bags on 12.05.2017, but the opposite party had supplied 50,000 bags without any order being placed by the complainant, as such the complainant had accepted only 16,000 bags and paid for the same and it was found that the remaining 34,000 bags were of poor quality and defective, as such the complainant had discussed with the Manager Mr.Jain Singh of the opposite party Company and expressed their intention to cancel the order for the remaining 34,000 and informing the same addressed a mail to the opposite party, but the opposite party had given a reply to the said mail on 07.06.2017, to which this complainant had also given a suitable reply on 08.06.2017 stating that somewhere in October’ 2016 and November 2016, the consignment received from the opposite party was of good quality, again when the order was placed in the month of March 2017, the opposite party had supplied very low and poor quality bags, as such the same were rejected and once again informed the opposite party to pick-up defective bags, failing which the same will be put into scrap. But the opposite party instead of lifting the defective bags, had issued a Legal Notice on 06.10.2017 i.e. after a lapse of 04 months, calling upon the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.37,44,074/- (Rupees thirty seven lakh forty four thousand and seventy four only), to which the compla