Date of Filing            :  05/12/2008

Date of Admission   : 12/12/2008

Date of Judgment    : 13/03/2013

 

Shri.Shreepal Aamu Gundwade

Age 65 years, Occup.- Agriculturist

R/o Dhavali, Tal.Miraj, Dist. Sangli                                   ……. COMPLAINANT

 

1. Chairman,

2. Managing Director,

3. Chairman,

    Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Lift Irrigation Scheme No.1

4. Secretary,

    Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Lift Irrigation Scheme No.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.         Instant complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act has been filed by the Complainant claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents and he has claimed Rs.8,263/- along with the interest @ 18% p.a. jointly and severally from the Respondent No.1 to 4. The Complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental and physical pains caused to him by the Opponents and a further amount of Rs.4,000/- being the cost of the litigation.

 

2.         Shortly stated, the case of the Complainant is that as a Sugarcane Cultivator he supplies sugarcane crop to the Respondent No.1 Sugar Factory and he is a member of Respondent No.3 irrigation society which is sponsored by the Respondent No.1 Sugar Factory. As such he is Consumer of the Respondents No.1 to 4. The complainant obtained water from the Chhatrapati Shivaji Lift Irrigation Scheme and has deposited the water charges regularly in the said society in cash. Whenever the sugar factory run by the Respondents No.1 &2 was running smoothly he has supplied the sugarcane crop to the said sugar factory. In the year 2002-03 he could not supply sugarcane to the respondent sugar factory because the said factory was not running properly. In the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 the said sugar factory was closed altogether and therefore he was compelled to supply sugarcane to other sugar factory. In the year 2005-06 the complainant had supplied the sugarcane crop the Respondent No.1 Sugar Factory. That from the bill for sugarcane crop payable for the year 2005-09 the Respondent No.1 & 2 have illegally deducted an amount of Rs.8,263/- on account of water charges. That though the complainant had deposited the water charges in the said irrigation society, from time to time the Respondent No.1 & 2 have illegally deducted the said amount. That he had deposited water charges in the year 2002-03 in cash with the said irrigation society. Despite the said fact the Respondent No.1 & 2 have illegally deducted the said water charges and thus have given defective service to the Complainant. That by notice dated 24/09/2008 issued to the respondents the complainant called upon the respondents to refund the said amount of Rs.8,263/- but to no avail and thus for the said deficiency in service the complainant is compelled to file this complaint- On such contention the complainant has prayed for the recovery of the amounts as stated above.

 

3.         The Respondent No.1 & 2 have filed their written statement at Exh.12 and have denied entire allegations leveled against them by the complaint, specifically. They have denied that they are liable to pay anything to the complainant. It is their specific contention that the Respondent No.3 irrigation scheme is a scheme sponsored by the said sugar factory having the primary object to supply the water to the members of the Respondent No.1 sugar factory. The complainant is the member of the Respondent No.1 to 4. That the Respondent No.1 & 2 recover the water charges from the bills payable to its members for the sugarcane supplied by them to the sugar factory. That the Respondent No.3 had supplied the water to the sugarcane crop of the complainant for the year 2001-02.  That it was necessary to recover the said bill amount from the bill of the sugarcane supplied by the complainant as per rules. But in the year 2002-03 the complainant had supplied his sugarcane to other sugar factory although the Respondent No.1 sugar factory was running in full scale. That the complainant falsely laid that Respondent No.1 sugar factory was shut down in the year 2002-03. That there is a provision to charge a penalty on the water charges bills for the preceding year in case a member cultivator has supplied the sugarcane to another sugar factory. Accordingly in the crushing season 2005-06 the Respondent No.1 & 2 have deducted water charges and the penalty from the sugarcane bills payable to the complainant and the said action is legal. That the Respondent No.3 has not informed in writing to the Respondent No.1 & 2 that the complainant has deposited the water charges in cash with the said irrigation society. Therefore as per the rules the Respondent No.1 & 2 have deducted the water charges for the year 2001-02 from the sugarcane bill for the year 2005-06 payable to the complainant. That as soon as the sugar factory came to know of the fact that the complainant has deposited water charges in cash with the Respondent No.3 society, by its letter dated 30/12/2006 the sugar factory has asked the Respondent No.3 society, either to refund the water charges to the complainant or else to adjust the said amount of the water charges payable by the complainant during the further period. That the Respondent No.3 water scheme only is responsible to refund the amount of water charges deposited by the complainant because the Respondent No.1 & 2 have lawfully deducted the water charges from the sugarcane bills payable to the complainant. On such contentions Respondent No.1 & 2 have contended that they are liable to pay nothing to the complainant and hence the complaint be dismissed.

 

4.         The Respondent No.3 & 4 were duly served with the notices. They remained absent and did not file any counter and hence by order dated 01/03/2013 they were proceeded ex-parte.

 

5.         In support of his contentions the complainant has filed his affidavit at Exh.3 and also filed various documents along with list at Exh.5 per contra. Respondent No.1 & 2 have filed affidavit of their authorized person by name Vijay Patil at Exh.14 and also filed various documents along with list at Exh.13. The Complainant has filed his counter affidavit at Exh.15. The Complainant and the Respondent No.1 & 2 have filed the evidence close pursis at Exh.26 & Exh.27 respectively.

 

 

6.         We have heard the submissions of the Learned Counsels appearing for the complainant and the Respondent No.1 & 2. The following points arise for our determination.

 

 

1)  Whether the complainant has proved that the Respondents

 

2) What order ?                                                                                As per final order.

 

The reasons for our findings above are as follows.

 

 

 

7.         At the outset it must be stated that there is no dispute with the the facts of this case. There is also no dispute with the fact that the complainant is a consumer of the Respondent No.1 to 4, within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and the fact that he avails the services from the Respondent No.1 to 4. There is also no dispute with the fact that for the crushing season 2001-02 the complainant had taken the water from the irrigation scheme of Respondent No.3 and for that he had deposited the water charges with the Respondent No.3 , in cash. There is also no dispute with the fact that for the Respondent No.1 & 2 have deducted water charges for the crushing season of 2001-02 from the sugarcane bill payable to the complainant for the year 2005-06. It means that admittedly the Respondent No.1 to 4 have recovered water charges for the crushing season 2001-02 twice. If we peruse the written statement of Respondent No.1 & 2 then we find that the Respondent No.1 & 2 have contended that it is responsibility of Respondent No. 3 & 4 to refund the excess water charges recovered from the complainant. The Respondent No.3 & 4 have not appeared before the Forum at all. Therefore, we are at loss to know the reasons as why Respondent No.3 & 4 have not refunded the water charges paid by the complainant for the crushing season 2001-02. None of the Respondents have the right to recover water charges twice and to retain the said amount and trying to shift the responsibility from one another. This is; in our opinion, a clear case of a deficiency in service and therefore the complainant has made out a clear case of consumer disputes. The complainant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is entitled to recover the excess payment of Rs.8,263/- from the Respondent No.1 to 4, jointly and severally. In the facts and circumstances of the case the complainant is also entitled to interest on the said amount as the Respondent had no right in law to recover the said amount in case from the complainant. The complainant has claimed interest on the said amount @ 18% p.a., which, in our opinion is quite excessive. There is no contractual stipulation between the parties for awarding the interest payable; much less on the point of rate of interest at which interest is payable. Even commercial transactions do not carry the interest at such excessive rates. The Nationalised Banks charge interest at 8.5% p.a.. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant shall be entitled to recover the interest at the rate of 8.5% p.a. on the excessive water charges amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case, such interest is payable from the date of complaint till realization.

 

 

8.         The complainant has claimed further amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental and physical torture. In the facts and circumstance of the case the complainant is entitled to recover the said amount and we, therefore, allow the said claim. The complainant is also entitled to recover the further amount of Rs.4,000/- by way of cost of litigation. We, therefore, hold according and proceed to pass the following order.

 

 

1)    The Complaint is allowed.

 

2)    The Respondent No.1 to 4 do hereby jointly and severally pay the amount of Rs.8,263/- to the complainant, within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.

 

3)    The Respondent No.1 to 4 shall jointly and severally pay further amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of the compensation for physical as well as mental torture. They shall also pay the amount of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant being the cost of litigation.

 

4)    The amount of Rs.8,263/- shall carry interest @8.5% p.a.from the date of complaint till realization.

 

5)    On the failure of Respondent No.1 to 4 to pay the aforementioned amounts along with interest within a period of 30 days from the date of order, the complainant shall be entitled to file the appropriate proceedings either under Sec.25 or Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

SANGLI

Dated : 13/03/2013