DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB          : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Thursday the 27^th  day of October 2023

C.C.66/2021

Complainant

                  Chitharangathan,

S/o Raman,

                  Propritor,

Shibili’s Ice and Cold Storage,

Puthiyangadi (PO),

Kozhikode – 673021

                 (By Adv. Smt. P.C. Padmaja)

Opposite Parties

     Ajesh. C.P,

     CEO & Technical Head,

                 5/1096 A 9,Shams Building,

                 East Nadakkavu, Nadakkavu,

Kozhikode – 673006

                (By Adv. Sri. Muhammad Arif.K.P)

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant is the proprietor of Shibili’s Ice and Cold Storage, Kozhikode. He is running this business exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The opposite party erected a water treatment plant with dual media filter, softener filter and electronic dosing system in the ice and cold storage of the complainant. The opposite party had submitted a quotation showing the technical specifications and the price. The total cost was Rs. 65,000/-. The water treatment plant was commissioned on 26/06/2019. The entire payment was made by the complainant. The complainant had to construct a platform spending Rs. 30,000/- for erecting the plant. The opposite party had undertaken the responsibility for the proper working condition of the plant for a period of 12 months and to provide monthly service visits. But the opposite party did not provide any monthly service visits or quality checks and service in spite of repeated demands. On 07/01/2020 the Health Inspector collected sample from the ice plant and sent for test and the result showed presence of coliforms. As per the direction of the Health Department, the water in the well was purified and quality test was done and only after that the licence was renewed. The water treatment plant erected by the opposite party is not working and has become worthless. The opposite party neglected to visit the plant and to do service to ensure proper working of the plant. There was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant had to suffer monetary loss to the tune of Rs. 2 lakh. Besides he had undergone mental agony and hardship, for which, he is claiming compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 3 lakh with interest and costs to the complainant.

3. The opposite party was set exparte.
4. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

                  (1) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?

                  (2) Reliefs and costs.

5. The complainant was examined as PW1and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked.
6. Heard.
7. Point No. 1:  The complainant is running an ice and cold storage for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The complainant has approached this Commission with a grievance that the water treatment plant erected by the opposite party in the ice and cold storage run by him ceased working and the opposite party who had undertaken the responsibility for the proper working condition of the plant and provide monthly service visits, neglected to do so and thereby there was gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The prayer in the complaint is to direct the opposite party to pay a total amount of Rs. 3 lakh as compensation for the monetary loss and mental agony suffered by him on account of the deficiency of service of the opposite party.
8. PW1 has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext. A1 is the commissioning report dated 26/06/2019, Ext. A2 is the quotation dated 06/03/2019, Ext. A3 is the bill dated 12/07/2019, Ext. A4 is the bill dated 11/03/2019, Ext. A5 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 15/07/2020, Ext. A6 is the unserved postal article, Ext.A7 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 14/09/2020 and Ext. A8 is the unserved postal article.
9.  The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite party has not turned up to file version. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim of the complainant. The case of the complainant stands proved trough the testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 documents. Deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party stands proved.
10. The complainant had paid a total amount of Rs. 65,000/- to the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to return the same to the complainant. Though the complainant has claimed that he had to spent Rs. 30,000/- for the construction of platform, nothing has been produced in support of the claim. Hence the claim in this regard is not allowed. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to gross mental agony and hardship due to the deficient service of the opposite party, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the proceedings.  
11. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                   a)  CC.66/2021 is allowed in part.

b) The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand only) to the complainant.

  c) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered.

  d) The opposite party is directed to pay sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

 d) The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand only) shall carry an  interest of  6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 27^thday of October, 2023.

Date of Filing: 18/03/2021

                                  Sd/-                                                        Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

                         PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                            MEMBER

APPENDIX

 Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Commissioning report dated 26/06/2019.

Ext.A2 – Quotation dated 06/03/2019.

Ext.A3 – Bill dated 12/07/2019.

Ext.A4 – Bill dated 11/03/2019. 

Ext.A5 – Copy of the lawyer notice dated 15/07/2020.

Ext.A6 – Unserved postal article.

Ext.A7 – Copy of the lawyer notice dated 14/09/2020.

Ext.A8 - Unserved postal article

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  Chithrangathan (Complainant)

                               Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

                        PRESIDENT                                               MEMBER                                                    MEMBER

   True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                           Assistant Registrar.