IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.188/2011 (Filed on 02.09.2011)
Between:
K. Narayanan,
Secretary,
Orippuram Bhagavathiyappuram,
Padasekhara Nellulpadaka Samithy,
Reg.No.P.203, Thattayil.P.O.,
Adoor Taluk.
(By Adv. P.V. Padmakumar) …. Complainant
And:
1. The Divisional Engineer,
Kerala Agro Industries Ltd.,
Kavumbhagom.P.O.,
Thiruvalla.
2. Managing Director,
Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. P.P. Mohammed Musthafa) …. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint as the Secretary of the Nellulpadaka Samithi against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows: Complainant is the Secretary of Bhagavathiyappuram Padasekhara Nellulpadaka Samithi, register No. P-203, Orippuram, Thattayil P.O. 1st opposite party is a Service Provider of farmers. 2nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1st opposite party. Complainant applied to 1st opposite party to provide a Combine Harvester Machine, which is in the possession of the 1st opposite party. At the time of submitting the application it is clearly stated that the machine is for harvesting 10 acres of paddy. While considering the application, opposite party informed the complainant that for harvesting 10 acres the aforesaid machine will take 10 hours only and in a day at least 6 hours can be easily harvested.
3. On 18.02.2011, complainant and 1st opposite party entered into an agreement for harvesting the 10 acres paddy field. As per the agreement for using the machine, ` 800 has to be paid to the office of the opposite party as rent for one hour. As directed by the opposite party, the complainant remitted an advance amount of ` 20,000 and a receipt for the same of Kerala Agro Industries Co. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram is also issued in the name of the complainant. On the same day itself, complainant took the machine with the operator to his Nelpadam, which is only 35 km. away. Opposite party arranged a lorry for transportation which costs ` 7,400 for up and down transportation. Opposite party also instructed to pay ` 400 to the operator per day as his allowance and to provide diesel and 2 male and 2 female workers for assistance. All these directions were fulfilled by the complainant.
4. Complainant’s allegation is that due to the complaints of the machine, only 7 acres harvest is completed by 6 days and for that harvesting 7 hours and 22 minutes taken. So the operator has to pay an additional amount of ` 2,000. Original hiring trip sheet is with the complainant and in which it is clearly mentioned. Machine is operated only for 7 hours and 22 minutes. Hence the opposite party is entitled to get only ` 5,900 as rent as per the agreement. But opposite party received ` 20,000 as advance amount. Moreover, as per the instructions of the 1st opposite party, each members of the Samithi engaged 4 workers for collecting the paddy. Due to the complaints of the machine, harvesting was not completed and hence they have engaged other workers and paid ` 14,400 by the members.
5. All these acts of the opposite party caused loss and mental agony to the Padasekhara Samithi. Complainant calculated the loss as ` 44,400. Complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party. But the opposite party sent reply notice with baseless contentions. Hence this complaint for the realization of ` 44,400 under various heads from the opposite parties for their deficiency in service.
6. 1st and 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed a common version. Their contention is that petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They agreed that they have entered into an agreement with the complainant on 18.01.2011. They also admitted that the complainant remitted ` 20,000 as advance amount for the machine. But the allegation that opposite party informed that, for harvesting 10 acres only 10 hours is necessary is denied by the opposite parties. As per the agreement, transportation cost and diesel expense should bear by the complainant. Salary of the operator is given by the opposite parties. The allegation that opposite parties arranged separate lorry for transportation is false and opposite parties is not aware of the payment of ` 7,400 made by the complainant.
7. When the machine showed complaints, it is repaired properly. The machine was not in working condition only for 3 days and balance 4 days the machine was operative. Due to the non-operation of the machine for 3 days, opposite parties agreed the complainant to return ` 8,000 from the advance amount. But he is not ready for that. So he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Opposite parties give full service to the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
9. The evidence of this case consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 and Exts. B1 and B2. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
10. The Point:- Complainant’s case is that on 18.01.2011 he entered into an agreement with the 1st opposite party for getting a Combine Harvester Machine. Complainant remitted ` 20,000 as advance in the office and the receipt also issued to the complainant. On that day itself, complainant transported the machine in a lorry arranged by the 1st opposite party. But it caused a loss of ` 7,400 to the complainant. Due to the complaint of the machine, it operated only for 7 hour and 22 minute and that too taken 6 days. So the opposite party is entitled to get only ` 5,900. But he had already collected ` 20,000 as advance. Moreover, the complainant had given additional batta of ` 2,000 to the operator and he engaged extra workers for completing the harvest by paying ` 14,400 as it took 6 days. All these losses were occurred due to the fault of the opposite parties and it is a deficiency of service and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
11. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. Ext.A1 is photocopy of the application submitted by the complainant on 18.01.2011. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the cash receipt dated 18.01.2011 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the photocopy of the hiring trip sheet dated 18.01.2011 to 24.01.2011 of the first opposite party. Ext.A4 is the photocopy of the letter dated 14.02.2011 issued by the complainant to the first opposite party. Ext.A5 is the photocopy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the first opposite party. Ext.A6 is the photocopy of the reply notice dated 11.05.2011 sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
12. Opposite parties’ contention is that complainant’s allegations are baseless. There is an agreement between them and they acted as per the agreement. The allegation that opposite parties informed the complainant that 10 hours is sufficient for harvesting 10 acres of Nelpadam and in a day at least 6 hours harvesting can easily be achieved is absolutely baseless. Opposite party never directed to pay an amount of ` 400 per day as batta to the operator. Opposite party has not arranged lorry for transporting the machine. In the agreement it is clearly stated that transportation cost, diesel expense etc. will be beared by the complaint. When the machine gets troubles, opposite party sent mechanic and it is repaired properly and it become operative. There is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties.
13. In order to prove the contentions raised by the opposite parties, 1st opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked through PW1. Ext.B1 is the original agreement dated 18.01.2011 executed between the complainant and the opposite parties and Ext.B2 is hiring trip sheet in connection with this transaction.
14. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that as per Ext.B1 agreement, the complainant had hired the combine harvester machine of the opposite party for harvesting the paddy in 10 acres under the complainant. As per Clause 3 of Ext.B1 agreement, the rent for the machine is ` 800 per hour. As per Ext.A2 receipt, the complainant had paid ` 20,000 as advance to the opposite party. Ext.A3 is the copy of Ext. B2. Ext.B2 is the original of hiring trip sheet in respect of the harvesting in the complainant’s paddy field from 18.01.2011 to 24.01.2011. The entries in Ext.A3 and B2 clearly show that the machine worked only for 7 hours and 22 minutes though the machine was therefore 7 days from 18.01.2011 to 24.01.2011. As per the rate fixed in the Ext.B1 agreement, opposite parties are entitled to get only ` 5,776 from the complainant. The advance collected is ` 20,000. The contentions and claim raised by the opposite parties is not in the tune with Ext.B1 and it is against the terms and conditions of Ext.B1 agreement. So the opposite parties are liable to return the balance amount of ` 14,224 to the complainant from the advance deposit. The number of days taken for the harvest is 6 days as per the Ext.A3 and B2 and this was due to the complaints of the machine. No doubt this delay caused much financial loss, mental agony and other inconvenience to the farmers, and opposite parties are liable for the same. All the above said acts of the opposite parties is clear deficiency in service. However the complainant has not produced any cogent evidence to show the quantum of the loss sustained to the farmers. Hence this complaint is partly allowable with compensation and cost.
15. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay ` 14,224 (Rupees Fourteen Thousand two hundred and twenty four only) to the complainant with 10% interest from 24.01.2011 onwards along with compensation of ` 7,000 (Rupees Seven Thousand only) and cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to realize the whole amount with 12% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 14th day of March, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : K. Narayanan
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the application dated 18.01.2011 submitted by the
complainant to the 1st opposite party.
A2 : Photocopy of the cash receipt dated 18.01.2011 for ` 20,000 issued
by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
A3 : Photocopy of the hiring trip sheet dated 18.01.2011 to 24.01.2011.
A4 : Photocopy of the letter dated 14.02.2011 sent by the complainant to
1st opposite party.
A5 : Legal notice issued by the petitioner to 1st and 2nd opposite party.
A6 : Reply of legal notice dated 11.05.2011 sent by the 1st opposite party to
the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Sumith. K.R.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Original Agreement dated 18.11.2011 executed between the
complainant and the opposite parties.
B2 : Hiring trip sheet dated 18.01.2011 to 24.01.2011.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) K. Narayanan, Secretary, Orippuram Bhagavathiyappuram,
Padasekhara Nellulpadaka Samithy, Reg.No.P.203,
Thattayil.P.O., Adoor Taluk.
(2) The Divisional Engineer, Kerala Agro Industries Ltd.,
Kavumbhagom.P.O., Thiruvalla.
(3) Managing Director, Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(4) The Stock File.
