(Sri A. Veerupakshi, Member)
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest on date of receiving, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of crop, Rs.10,000/- for suffering with mental agony, physically and deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainant is an agriculturist and he is cultivating the lands in Sy.Nos.384/A and 384/AA situated within the limits of Kothur village and the said lands were registered in his mother and wife’s name i.e., Venkatamma and Jyothi. The OP-1 is the owner of the bore well and the OP-2 is the supervisor under OP-1. On 29-12-2011 the OP-2 came to the complainant’s village for digging bore well in the land of one Katike Kishanji which is situated adjacent to the land of the complainant. The complainant asked OP-2 to dig a bore well in his land also, for which OP-2 agreed. Then the complainant paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards advance for digging bore well to OP-2 and the OP-2 promised to the complainant that he will come to his land on 30-12-2011 for digging bore well, but the OP-2 failed to come to the complainant’s land for digging bore well on that day. Thereupon, the complainant approached the opposite parties for digging bore well or to refund the advance amount but OP-2 postponed the matter for some reason or other. Due to the attitude of the opposite parties the complainant suffered a lot physically and financially and he lost his ground nut crop due to scarcity of water for not digging the bore well in his land which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The complainant sent a legal notice through counsel on 23-1-2012, the same was received but the opposite parties failed to give any reply nor refunded any amount. Thus the complainant filed the present complaint seeking the above said relief.
3. The notices of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are sent through registered post and the same are returned with endorsement “addressee refused”. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are also called absent on 13-4-2012. Hence the OPs.1 and 2 are set exparte.
4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5.
5. The points for determination now are:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in
rendering service to the complainant as alleged?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him?
(iii) To what effect?
6. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that on 29-12-2011 the OP-2 came to his village for digging bore well in the land of one Katike Kishanji which is situated adjacent to the land in Sy.Nos.384/A and 384/AA cultivated by the complainant and registered in his mother and wife’s name. It is the further case of the complainant that he asked the OP-2 for digging bore well in the said lands and paid Rs.15,000/- towards advance as under the original of Ex.A-1 and the OP-2 promised that he will come on 30-12-2011 for digging bore well, but he failed to turn up on that day for digging bore well. Thereupon, he approached the OP-2 for digging bore well but he postponed the matter on some pretext or other. Then the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties as under the original of Ex.A-2 and the same was served on OPs.1 and 2 under postal acknowledgements Exs.A-4 and A-5. The opposite parties, having received the said notices, did not choose to give any reply nor refunded the amount.
7. The case of the complainant as stated above is not challenged by the OPs.1 and 2. The OPs.1 and 2 though received the legal notices as under the Exs.A-4 and A-5 failed to give any reply nor refunded the amount. On a perusal of the material papers on record including Exs.A-1 to A-5 it is clearly established that the complainant gave advance amount of Rs.15,000/- as under the original of Ex.A-1 for digging the bore well in the lands stated above, but the opposite parties failed to dig the bore well nor refunded the advance amount to the complainant. Then the complainant has given legal notice through Ex.A-2 which was served on the OPs.1 and 2 under Exs.A-4 and A-5 postal acknowledgements but the opposite parties failed to give any reply to the said notice nor refunded the amount. Further, the notices sent to the opposite parties through Forum are also returned with an endorsement “addressee refused”. They also called absent on 13-4-2012 and hence they are set exparte. The opposite parties did not choose to file any counter or affidavit evidence challenging the case of the complainant. Thus the case of the complainant remains unrebutted. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we hold that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him together with some reasonable costs. As far as the relief for grant of compensation is concerned, the complainant did not produce any credible evidence in respect of the loss of crop, as such we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation towards loss of crop. Accordingly both the points are answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
8. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing both the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- paid towards advance for digging bore well and Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of the present order.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 26th day of April, 2012.
