BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 150/2004 Filed on 31.03.2004<br /> Dated : 15.10.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> M. Manoj, Manjusha, T.C 1/2043, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram represented by his Power of Attorney Holder M.K. Manmadhan, residing at Manjusha, T.C 1/2043, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. Sandeep T. George)<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.Divisional Forest Officer, Timber Sales Division, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram – 13.<br /> <br /> 2.Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Southern Circle, Chinnakada, Kollam.<br /> <br /> 3.Depot Officer, Forest Range Office, Aryankavu, Trivandurm. <br /> (By adv. Paraniyam Devakumar)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 11.08.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 03.10.2008, the Forum on 15.10.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA: MEMBER<br /> <br /> The facts of the case are as follows: On 27.05.2003 the complainant had purchased Teak logs of II B & III B quality under lot Nos. 346 and 328 and the 3rd opposite party had assured that the Teak logs under lot No. 346 are of II B quality and believing the same the complainant remitted the entire sale consideration and all other taxes and obtained permission for transporting the same. But, at the time of loading the logs in the lorry, it was found that one log bearing No. 2481 under lot No. 346 having 0.546 m3 volume was found damaged. This was informed to the 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party directed the complainant not to take the defective log and promised the complainant that the price for the same will be refunded and on this assurance the complainant transported other logs leaving the defective log with the 3rd opposite party. Inspite of several requests and notice the opposite parties have not taken any action for refunding the amount, hence this complaint for redressal of his grievances. <br /> <br /> The 1st opposite party has filed version for and on behalf of the other opposite parties also contending as follows: The complainant has acted only according to the sale notice conditions of the Forest Department. No assurance was given by the opposite parties to the complainant other than the Annexure 1 sale conditions in accordance with which the auction was conducted. It is admitted that one log included in lot No. 346/03 purchased by the complainant was not upto the quality of II B class teak timber and on receiving complaint from the complainant, personal verification was conducted and the log in question was found defective. After completing the official formalities, the value of the defective log has been refunded to the complainant. Urgent action has been taken up by the opposite parties to refund the proportionate amount in question and none of the opposite parties have delayed the process of the petition of the complainant at any time. As per the condition 4 of the sale notification No. FU (2) 21865/02 dated 23.11.2002 of the Chief Conservator of Forests (P) the sale is conducted in an “is where is condition” and any claim after the auction regarding the quality of the timber will not be entertained. As the complainant is not a regular bidder or a trader, the case was viewed in an angle of fair trade practice and hence the Department refunded the proportionate amount remitted by the bidder for the Log bearing Stock No. 2481/03. The sale being conducted in accordance with Annexure I sale conditions the complainant is bound by Annexure I sale condition and hence he is not entitled to any relief other than the proportionate amount refunded to him. There is no cheating or unfair trade practice or any deficiency of service or unscrupulous exploitation of consumer. It is the sole duty of the bidder(complainant) to verify and satisfy the quality of the timber before the auction sale as stipulated in Annexure I sale conditions, which was read and signed by the petitioner before commencement of the auction. Even then the case was viewed in an angle of fair trade practice, the opposite parties had refunded the value of the defective log.<br /> <br /> The power of attorney holder of the complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked on the part of the complainant. PW1 has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. Opposite parties have not filed affidavit and no documents marked on their behalf.<br /> <br /> The issues that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?<br /> <br /> Point (i):- The complainant who had purchased teak logs of II B and III B quality under lot Nos. 346 and 328 in the auction conducted at the Govt. Timber Depot, found that one log, bearing No. 2481 under lot No. 346 having 0.546 m3 volume which was kept as 'Padangu' under five other logs was found damaged/ruined by decay, heart rot and shatter. According to the complainant, the 3rd opposite party directed the complainant not to take the defective log and the complainant was promised refund of the price for the same. But till the filing of the complaint it was not refunded. But after the filing of this complaint, the opposite parties have refunded the price of the timber excluding the tax paid by the complainant. Now the complainant has limited his claim to the tax amount of Rs. 5696/- along with compensation and costs. The opposite parties in their version have admitted the defect in the log and according to the opposite parties, the value of the defective log has been refunded to the complainant on 04.06.2004 which is obviously much after the filing of this complaint. At this juncture, the aspect to be looked into is, whether the delay caused in refunding this amount is justifiable. The dispute is with regard to refund of amount of the transaction which took place on 27.05.2003. The opposite parties have admitted that the refund has been done only on 04.06.2004 which is after a long delay of one year. Though the opposite parties have contended that they have taken urgent action to refund the proportionate amount, no genuine justification has been put forward for the said inordinate delay. Anyhow, the complainant has accepted the proportionate amount and has now limited his claim for refund of the tax amount along with compensation and costs. <br /> According to the opposite parties- as per the condition 4 of the sale notification No. FU (2) 21865/02 dated 23.11.2002 of the Chief Conservator of Forests (P) the sale is conducted in an “is where is condition” and any claim after the auction regarding the quality of the timber will not be entertained, even then the complainant's case was viewed in an angle of fair trade practice and the value of the defective log has been refunded. The opposite parties have not marked any documents in support of their case. But there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the refund of the amount of the timber has been done after the filing of this complaint, but the complainant has claimed the tax amount of Rs. 5696/- also from the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not controverted with sufficient documents the claim of the complainant for payment of Rs. 5696/-. The sworn statement in the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant, wherein the claim of tax amount has been claimed stands unchallenged and uncontroverted. The Ext. P4 series prove that the complainant had brought the matter to the notice of the opposite parties in time. The complainant has proved beyond doubt that the complainant had to suffer due to the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties. The complainant had undisputedly suffered mental strain and wasted time and money due to the deficient act of the opposite parties in not refunding the money in time. In the light of the above discussions we find that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 5696/- along with a compensation of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- towards costs from the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> In the result, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 5,696/- along with a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- towards costs to the complainant within a period of one month. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th October 2008.<br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 150/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Photocopy of Special Power of Attorney executed on <br /> 11.09.2002.<br /> P2 - Photocopy of original chalan receipt dated 04.08.2003.<br /> P3 - Original bill for the value of timber dated 27.05.2003.<br /> P4 - Copy of letter dated 21.10.2003 issued by the complainant to <br /> the 2nd opposite party.<br /> P4(a) - Copy of letter dated 04.08.2003 to the 3rd opposite party by <br /> the complainant. <br /> P5 - Postal receipt dated 23.10.2003.<br /> P5(a) - Postal receipt dated 01.06.2004.<br /> P5(b) - Postal receipt dated 23.10.2003.<br /> P6 - Copy of letter No. Q C7 – 8177/03 dated 19.05.2004 to the <br /> complainant. <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> NIL <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />