CHADALAWADA PRASAD Vs. K. GURUNADHAM & SONS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR GOPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.

(2.) The case of the complainant in brief is that he placed an order with respondent on 27.8.2004 for printing and supplying of 500 calendars of year 2005 - 28 x 15 size, with back and back printing in six sheets each containing one month calendar with three colours in English and Telugu by using the Maplitho or Andhra Paper at Rs. 14/- each. He paid an amount of Rs. 1,500/- in cash as advance. The respondent agreed to deliver the calendars before the end of December, 2004. He paid remaining balance also. Later when he received the consignment, he found that the calendars were not according to the specifications. He printed on a low cost material, that too with lesser size. When he contacted on phone, the respondent directed him to send back the parcel and accordingly he returned it through Navata transport on 1.1.2005. When he demanded refund of the amount, he again sent the very same parcel. On that he sent back the material. He sustained a loss of Rs. 15,000/- which he claimed with interest @ 24% p.a together with damages of Rs. 5,000/- and transportation charges of Rs. 2,000/-.

(3.) The respondent resisted the case. He denied that he was a manufacturer of the calendars nor the complainant had placed any order with particular specifications. His business activity is selling of stationery and fancy goods. He was selling calendars of different types which had already printed. The complainant has verified the calendars already printed without name on the top which were received from a reputed printing press from Sivakasi. The complainant having satisfied with the calendars requested to print his name. Accordingly , it printed it and despatched the material. There is no written agreement. It is only based on faith. He never asked to return the material, nor promised to return after printing with a particular specification. The office copies of letters filed along with complaint were fabricated. There was no deficiency in service on its part. Though in his notice Dt. 18.1.2005 the complainant asked him to pay Rs. 7,000/- while in the complaint he demanded Rs. 15,000/-. The complainant is an editor of Vastudarshini a profit earning concern, and it was for commercial purpose. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.