PEELAMEDU WEAVERS CO-OP. PRODUCTION And SALES SOCIETY LTD. vs SRI PALANI ANDAVAR TEXTILES

THE complainant is THE Peelamedu Weavers Co-op. Production and Sales Society Ltd. THE complainants have entered into an agreement with the 1st opposite party, viz., Sri Palani Andavar Textiles of which the 2nd opposite party is a partner, on 6.11.93, for printing of various Sarees in grey cotton clothes. As per the agreement the complainant has to supply grey clothes over which printing is to be done and sent back to the complainant, for which the complainant has to pay the charges as contemplated under the agreement. THE complainant has supplied 6,09,273 metres of grey cloths. As per the terms of the agreement, the opposite party should supply 1,19,465 Sarees after printing. THE entire process has to be completed within 15.12.93. Now the case of the complainant is that in violation of the agreement the opposite parties returned only 1,14,157 printed Sarees instead of 1,19,465 Sarees. THE complainant sent those Sarees received by them to Co-optex, who are the procuring agents. THE Co-optex returned to the complainant 11,765 Sarees out of the said 1,14,157 Sarees sent to them as inferior quality. Because of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in printing on inferior quality of Saree clothes instead of the standard quality clothes supplied by the complainant, the complainant sustained loss of Rs. 5,42,366.50. On these allegations, the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,42,366.50 being the cost of the said 11,765 inferior quality Sarees and Rs. 1,00,000/- for damages caused to the complainant.

AS against it in their written version the opposite party contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. They contended that it is false to alleged that they printed Sarees on inferior quality of clothes. In the presence of the representatives of the complainant printing, bleaching, processing, packing and transporting are done. It is also contended that the officers of the complainant visited the work place of the opposite parties twice a week and then, only after testing of them by the Special Officer of the complainant Society the materials are packed. They also contended that besides there are a number of other textile companies who undertake printing of Sarees for the complainant and they also send those Sarees to the Co-optex. Therefore it will be impossible to identify any inferior quality of Sarees as that of the opposite parties since they mix with Sarees of other parties who supply printed Sarees. On these contentions the opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The points that arise for consideration is whether the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service and therefore they are liable to pay the amount prayed for in the complaint.

Point : On going though the complaint as well as the written version, it appears that there was short supply of Sarees by the opposite parties. But regarding this, it appears there is some understanding reached between the parties and therefore there is no dispute regarding that in this complaint and in fact no relief regarding that has been claimed by the complainant. The only question that has to be considered is whether there was supply of inferior quality of Sarees as alleged by the complainant. It is seen in the complaint that according to the complainant, they first complained of inferior quality of Sarees of 26,350 Nos. But, later they have reduced it to 11,765 Nos. According to the complainant, the Co-optex first complained of 26,350 Nos. and later they themselves reduced the figure. It is the definite case of the opposite parties that they never used inferior quality of clothes for printing Sarees. That being the case, the remedy of the complainant is to prove that, as alleged by them, there was supply of inferior quality of Sarees. Regarding this, there is no direct evidence let in by the complainant. They relied on only some correspondence between them and the opposite parties viz., Exs. A-9, A-10, A-11 and A-12. Ex. A-9, A-10 and A-11 are letters written by the complainant to the opposite parties; Ex. A-12 is the reply sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. In Ex. A-9 it is stated that Co-optex has rejected 17,000 Nos. of Sarees as inferior quality and therefore the opposite parties are to get back these Sarees and send quality Sarees. In Ex. A-10 it is stated that there was short supply of 5,308 sarees and the opposite parties have to make good the shortage immediately. The complainant has further stated that because there are 26,360 Sarees of inferior quality supplied by the opposite parties, they have not been procured by Co-optex and they are lying with the complainant and the opposite parties have to find a solution to it. In Ex. A-11, the complainant has stated that the opposite parties have not sent any reply to the letters Ex. A-9 and A-10. In Ex. A-12 reply the opposite parties have written that due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances they could not make delivery in time and they would settle the matter at the earliest time possible. From this it is obvious that it is admitted by the opposite parties that there was supply of inferior quality of Sarees. But here it must be remembered that even though in Ex. A-10 it is stated by the complainant that Co-optex has rejected 26,360 Sarees as of inferior quality, in the complaint that figure has been reduced to 11,765. It is not clear as to on what basis this has occurred. It is true that in Ex. A-9 a reference has been made to the supply of inferior quality of Sarees. In Ex. A-10 a reference has been made regarding short supply and also supply of inferior quality of the Sarees. In Ex. A-12 reply it is seen that the opposite parties have never admitted that there was supply of inferior quality of Sarees. All that they have stated is that due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances they could not make delivery in time. Therefore it cannot be said that the opposite parties admitted the supply of inferior quality of Sarees. It may be argued that it has been referred to in Exs. A-9 and A-10 letters about the supply of inferior quality of Sarees and this has not been denied in Ex. A-12 reply. But even then, from Exs. A-9 and A-10 letters alone one cannot come to a definite conclusion that it was a fact that inferior quality of Sarees of 11,765 Nos were supplied. It is not in dispute that in the agreement Ex. A-l it is clearly mentioned that during the process of printing and bleaching the representatives of the complainant would be there and further that two officers of the complainant would be visiting the work place of the opposite parties twice a week and only on verification of the finished materials by the Special Officer or the representatives of the complainant, they would be packed and supplied. Regarding this, no plea has been raised by the complainant. Therefore, it would appear that there was no chance for the opposite parties to do the processing, printing, bleaching in inferior quality of clothes.

IT is also not disputed that besides the opposite parties, there are other textile companies who also do the work of printing and bleaching Sarees for the complainant on the similar line and they also supply the finished goods to the Co-optex. There is absolutely nothing to show that the Sarees alleged to have been of inferior quality were those supplied by the opposite parties. They could very well be the Sarees supplied by the other companies. In these circumstances, only from the materials available before us, it cannot be held that as alleged by the complainant there was supply of inferior quality of Sarees. Thus viewing, we dismiss the complaint. There will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed. ______________