DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD<br /> <br /> Dated this the 15th day of June 2007.<br /> <br /> Present : Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> Smt.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> C.C.No.124/2006<br /> <br /> P.V.K. Unni Nair<br /> 60 years<br /> S/o. Kunjumalu Nesyar<br /> Veethottoor Nair House<br /> Parathikkadu<br /> Ezhumangad, Thirumittakode<br /> Ottappalam<br /> Palakkad - Complainant<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> C.M. Jacob<br /> Managing Partner<br /> Chalingal Rubber Nursery<br /> Karimba. . - Opposite party <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> By Prof.O. Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> <br /> The complainant in this case had entrusted the opposite party to supply10,000 Rubber saplings @ 22/- per plant and opposite party had agreed to supply the saplings at the complainant's premises. The complainant had paid Rs.6,000/- as advance to the opposite party by way of cheque No.3593 on 02.03.2005 to Ottappalam Service Co.op Bank. The opposite party had promised to deliver the saplings on 15.06.2005 but he had not supplied the saplings as promised. Hence the complainant had suffered so many difficulties. He had to approach another nursery for purchasing 4000 Rubber saplings @ 35/- per plant and another 6000 saplings @ 40/-. Hence he had suffered a loss of Rs.1,60,000/-.<br /> - 2 -<br /> <br /> The complainant caused a lawyer notice to the opposite party demanding him to pay Rs.1,60,000/- compensation and also to refund Rs.6,000/- paid on advance along with notice charges. But the opposite party issued a reply stating false allegations. The above act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence he had approached before this forum claiming the additional expenses of Rs.1,60,000/- paid as advance along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by him and also the costs.<br /> <br /> Notice was issued to opposite party for appearance. Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The above complaint has no legal merits and it has to be dismissed. There is no agreement between the complainant and the opposite party regarding the purchase of rubber saplings. The complainant approached the opposite party and brought 150 Kg <br /> of polythene bags for planting rubber stumbs. Towards the cost of those bags the complainant has given a cheque worth Rs.6,000/- and had agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,100/- to the opposite party and had not paid the balance amount so far. The above complaint is filed as a clever attempt to get over from his liability of Rs.2,100/- towards opposite party . There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint had to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents which was marked as Exhibits A1 to A5. Exhibit A3 was objected by opposite party. Opposite party also filed proof affidavit.<br /> <br /> Heard both parties.<br /> - 3 -<br /> We have perused the Affidavits as well as documents produced before the Forum. Ext. A4 is the certificate issued by Ottappalam Service Co-operative Bank regarding details of cheque which shows that an amount of Rs.6,000/- was encashed by opposite party on 17.03.2005. The above transaction is also admitted by the opposite party. But Ext. A3 was objected by the opposite party stating that there was no agreement between the complainant and opposite party regarding the purchase of Rubber sapling. The original agreement was also not produced by the complainant. Hence the evidentiary value of Ext. A3 cannot be considered. The complainant had produced certain bills regarding purchase of rubber saplings from another nursury which was also objected by opposite party.<br /> <br /> In the absence of a valid agreement between the parties regarding the purchase of rubber saplings we are not in a position to accept the contention of the compliant. The opposite party had also not produced any evidence to prove that he had supplied 150 Kg Polythene bags worth Rs.8,100/-. But it is evident from Ext. A4 that the opposite party had received Rs.6,000/- from the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Considering all aspects of the case and submissions of the complainant as well as the evidence on record, in our considered opinion. The refund of Rs.6,000/- in the instant case will meet the ends of justice. The only option left before the forum is to direct opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant. In the above circumstances the complaint is partly allowed to the extent of Rs.6,000/-<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> - 4 -<br /> Hence we direct the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.6,000/- received from the complainant within one month from the date of communication of this order along with Rs.500/- as costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of June, 2007 <br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant<br /> <br /> Ext.A1 series – Lawyer notice issued by complainant to opposite party along with <br /> acknowledgment and Postal receipt<br /> Ext.A2 - Reply notice<br /> Ext.A3 - Agreement executed by complainant and one Jinto (objected)<br /> Ext.A4 – Details of cheque issued by Ottappalam Service – Co Bank Ltd<br /> Ext A5 series (2 Nos) – Purchase bills of Rubber Plantations (objected)<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party<br /> <br /> Nil<br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order,<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br />