Adv. S.R. Vernekar for the Opposite Party
None present for OP at the time of order
Complaint filed on 30/05/2014
Complaint disposed on 24/03/2015
O R D E R
(Per Ms. Savita G. Kurtarker, Member)
This Order shall dispose of the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
….2/-
The brief facts of the case are as under:
- The Complainant filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party who is the service provider of Pest Management Services. The Complainant had a problem with five number of coconut trees such as tender leaves are being eaten by pests, premature drying of leaves, one of the trees bearing virtually no fruits, others bearing 5-10 fruits, kernel of fruits of two coconut trees getting decayed.
- On 15.07.2013 the Complainant engaged services of the Opposite Party for the plant health care treatment to get rid of problems. One Mr. Praveen Marate, the Opposite Party’s personnel carried out plant health care treatment for five numbers of coconut trees and charged Rs. 3000/- for the said treatment.
- It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party had given in writing that at the end of six months all the problems of the trees will be solved and will give good yield.
- After a period of six months the Complainant find the problems mentioned at para 1 above continued and the yield of the trees was nil.
- It is also the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party agreed to give one dose of free plant health care treatment.
- The Complainant telephonically informed the Opposite Party about the problems and requested to send an expert to assess the problems. (no dates are mentioned). It is the case of the Complainant that thrice the Opposite Party fixed the appointment saying that he would visit the site, study and redress the problem but the Opposite Party failed to keep the appointment (no dates are given).
…3/-
- It is the case of the Complainant that the technician Shri Mahendra Sawant visited Complainant’s site on 09.02.2014 and carried out the inspection and gave him a letter mentioned at para 1 stating that the above problems still persist.
- It is also the case of the Complainant that he requested for a free service but same was refused by the technician Shri Sawant.
- The Complainant gave a letter to the technician of Opposite Party listing all the problems and the Opposite Party’s technician told the Complainant that he will discuss with his boss and the Complainant would receive the acknowledged copy of the said letter.
- The Complainant sent notice dated 25.02.2014 and the same was received by the Opposite Party on 06.03.2014 and the Opposite Party replied the said notice vide their reply dated 07.03.2014.
- The Complainant relied on the following documents:
- Duly filled in Order-cum-contract form supplied by OP showing the plant treatment.
- Receipt of Rs. 3000/- issued by OP towards plant health care treatment.
- Legal notice dated 25.02.2014.
- Postal receipt towards the despatch of registered letter containing notice.
- A/D card showing OP received the notice.
- OP’s reply to the notice.
- Visiting card of OP’s technician.
- Statement by OP’s technician stating that the original problems still continue.
- The Complainant filed the complaint with the following prayers:
- Refund of amount paid towards plant treatment … Rs. 3,000.00
- Compensation towards non-effectiveness
of plant treatment … Rs.15,000.00
- Litigation expense with time spent on litigatio… Rs. 5,000.00
- Mental agony, stress caused to the
Complainant and his family … Rs.50,000.00
- Compensation … Rs.27,000.00
Rs. 1,00,000.00
- The Opposite Party was duly served and the Opposite Party filed his written version on 27.08.2014.
- Thereafter the Complainant moved an application dated 17.09.2014 requesting the Forum not to take on record written version filed by the Opposite Party as the same is filed beyond 45 days. The said application was disposed vide order dated 21.10.23014 and the written version of the Opposite Party was not taken on record as the same was filed beyond 45 days.
- The Complainant filed Affidavit-in-evidence and also filed written arguments. We heard both the ld advocates.
- After perusal of the complaint, affidavit-in-evidence and the written arguments of the Complainant, we have observed that it is an admitted fact that five coconuts trees were treated by the Opposite Party. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant was charged Rs. 3000/- for the plant health care treatment for those coconut trees. The Complainant has annexed the receipt of said payment at Annexure-A. We do not find anything in writing by the Opposite Party that at the end of six months all the problems mentioned at para 1 will be solved and trees will give good yield as averred by the Complainant at para III (a) of the complaint.
- We have gone through the registered A/D notice dated 25.02.2014 sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. In the said notice we have observed that the Complainant has averred that there is undertaking from the Opposite Party that at the end of six months all the problems will be solved. However, we do not find such undertaking produced by the Complainant. While perusing the said notice we have observed that the Complainant has asked compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Opposite Party attributing negligence for failure of treatment by the Opposite Party.
…5/-
- We have seen reply to the notice dated 25.02.2014 of the Opposite Party dated 07.03.2014 and we have learnt from the said reply that treatment given to the said trees was eco enrich, purely an organic manure and trippleneem as pesticide through soil and further the Opposite Party has stated that organic manure takes more time to decompose and its release in soil is very slow. We have also observed at para 4 of the said reply that some plants are bearing 8-10 coconuts a tree and the couple of plants are having 15-18 nuts per tree but compared to seven months back condition of the plants are much healthier. It is also stated in the said para of their reply that the plants could able to survive after getting proper nutrition and pesticide therefore claim of failure of treatment does not stand valid.
- It is also stated in the said reply that pest incidence of plants and lower yield is a result of various factors like such as soil, climatic conditions and spacing between the two plants. Hence it cannot be guaranteed about the plants performance. We have also observed in para 5 of the said reply that the Opposite Party shown their willingness to carry out one more dose of manure and pesticide application free of charge so that the existing plants will be strengthened and develop immunity to pest.
- Under the circumstances the issue before us is the deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. The answer to this issue after perusing the records of the present complaint and hearing the oral arguments we find that the Complainant has not complained about the treatment given to the plants but the Complainant grievance is for the result of the said treatment. It is not the case of the Complainant after treatment plants died. It is not the case of the Complainant that the yield of the trees become nil after treatment.
- We agree with the Opposite Party that treatment also depend on various factors like soil, climatic conditions, space between the
...6/-
trees. It is worthwhile to mention that the Complainant has not produced any report of agricultural technician stating that the treatment of the Opposite Party was a total failure. Therefore we do not agree with the contention of the Complainant that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- We are not inclined to award cost to the Complainant because Opposite Party shown their willingness to offer additional dose of manure and pesticide free of charge to the Complainant’s five coconut trees inspite of that the Complainant hurriedly rushed to this Forum to grab compensation instead of amicably settling the matter. We find that the Complainant is more interested in making money instead of well growth of his trees/plants.
- However, taking into consideration the above facts, we hereby partly allow the complaint and pass the following Order:
O R D E R
The Opposite Party is directed to provide one more dose of manure and pesticide free of charge to the said five coconut trees of the Complainant within a period of three months from the date of this order. There shall be no orders as to cost.
(Shri Jayant S. Prabhu)
President
(Ms. Savita G. Kurtarker)
Member
(Ms. Cynthia A. Colaco)
Member
pf:
25/3
