BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI-GOA In the matter of First Appeal 05 of 2021 in Consumer Complaint 86 of 2019.

Before: Shri Dhananjay A. Jog, President (off.)

Adv. Ms. Rachna A. M. Gonsalves, Member Adv. Smt. Varsha R. Bale, Member Shri Keith Gracias, House No. 119, Demonaik, Orlim, Salcete, Goa. …..Appellant V.

Shri Sudeena, 3-36, Kodi City, District Udupi, Karnataka. 576226. .....Respondent Adv. Ms. H. Naik Gaonkar represents Appellant.

Adv. Shri Neil Pereira argues for Respondent.

Date: 07/12/2022

JUDGMENT

[per Shri Dhananjay A. Jog, President (off.)]

1. This Appeal, filed on 20/01/2021 arises from Judgment dated 14/12/2020 in CC/86/2019 by District Commission, South, which dismissed the Complaint with cost of Rs.15,000/-.

2. Appellant who was then Complainant, is hence before us. The matter pertains to a transaction of purchase of ‘Red Snapper’ live fish seeds by Appellant from Respondent who is based in District Udupi, Karnataka.

3. Appellant visited the latter’s business outlet and expressed his requirement of 2,000 such fish seeds. On discussions with Respondent, the sum agreed for the above quantity was Rs.1,40,000/-. This contract was entered on 20/09/2018 at Kundapur, District Udupi. Appellant contends that Respondent agreed to subsequently deliver the said material to Appellant’s place of business in Goa.

4. However Respondent states that the entire quantity of 2,000 live fish seeds was physically taken by Appellant on the day he visited Kundapur (20/09/2018). That the material was given on credit and Appellant was to make payment shortly from Goa. However that Appellant paid only 50% of the cost (Rs.70,000/-) by bank transfer to Respondent.

That the balance Rs.70,000/- is still due.

5. Per-contra Appellant contends that the consignment was subsequently delivered by transport; that too only partly and after a long delay, on 08/01/2019.

6. Respondent has produced with his Affidavit a ‘Cash/Credit Memo cum Delivery Challan’ (henceforth in this Judgment, for the purpose of brevity, called ‘Memo’) dated 20/09/2018 which is Exhibit ‘13’ in the District Commission’s records.

7. The said Memo, bearing Sr.No.135, shows that quantity taken was 2,000 Snapper Red (fish seeds) @ Rs.70/- each thus totalling to Rs.1,40,000/-. This Memo carries at its left side lower-half the following wording:

“Mode of delivery: self by Hand Signature of Party taking delivery: Signed”

8. It is seen here that Appellant, the “Party taking delivery” has signed his acknowledgment. The District Commission noted in its Judgment that the signature on above Memo was identical to Appellant’s signatures on the Complaint and on his Affidavit. Counsel for Appellant would argue that Appellant does not admit to having signed the said memo.

9. We observe however, that, in case Appellant had indeed not signed the Memo showing he had received delivery, he could have produced the original Memo which would have been given to him since it also was a Delivery Challan and thereby established absence of his signature.

10. The District Commission, in the impugned Judgment has observed that Appellant has not produced any evidence in rebuttal of Respondent’s evidence in the form of said Cash/Credit Memo.

11. The impugned Judgment of the District Commission hence concluded that both the Contract between Parties and the Delivery of material, happened in District Udupi, Karnatak state.

12. Appellant states that Delivery was not taken by him in Udupi. That Respondent had agreed to deliver the material by transport to Appellant’s place of business in Goa. That Respondent finally did so, but belatedly (08/01/2019) and that too, of quantity lesser than agreed (400 seeds instead of 2000). However, Appellant has produced no proof as to such consignment having been delivered to him by transporter.

13. We do not pass any observation on the issues of Territorial Jurisdiction and of Appellants status as a ‘Consumer’ or otherwise as these have been dealt with in detail in