CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 11th day of July 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 03/01/2014
: SMT. SHINY.P.R ,MEMBER
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
CC/6/2014
Nagesh Pai, S/o. Lakshman Pai,
H.No. XI/333,
Padavayal, Paloor P.O,
Attappadi Village, Mannarkkad Taluk, : Complainant
Palakkad Dist.
(By Adv. K. Jyothi Basu)
Vs
Ganesh Navale, The Proprietor,
Anant Green House Construction,
A/P 492, Kalpana Housing Society ( Varale), : Opposite party
Talegaon Dabhade, Pune – 410 5047
O R D E R
By Smt. Shiny. P. R. Member.
Brief facts of the complaint: - The complainant is engaged in Agricultural activities intended to enter into the activities HI-tech Farming. On acquiring the information that the State Horticulture Mission, Kerala is assisting in “Establishment of Naturally Ventilated Tabular Structures Poly House”, the complainant approached them who in turn sanctioned to the complainant for establishment of Naturally Ventilated Tubular Structures Poly House under Hi-Tech Farming. As per order No. 1A (4) 9060/2012 dated 5th January 2013, the complainant had eligibility for assistance from Government Agencies for implementation of the scheme. Then the complainant approached the opposite party and opposite party agreed to construct agreen house (Naturally Ventilated Tubular Structured Poly House) at cost of Rs. 3,00,000/- as per specifications of State Horticulture Mission, Kerala. Hence the complainant entrusted the work to opposite party and paid Rs. 1, 80,000/- by transfer from the Bank of Calicut By RTGS to the Anand Green House Constructions account with Punjab National Bank at Talegaon Dabhade Branch Pune. Then Rs. 50,000/- transferred by RTGS through the above account and Rs. 70,000/- was paid in cash. Hence the complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the opposite party for the construction of green house. After completion of the green house, the complainant applied for subsidy before Agricultural officer Puthur Palakkad. Then the agricultural officer visited the poly house and stated that the poly house sheets are torn at several places, GI pipes used are of low measurements and separate bills are not provided. Then the agricultural officer intimated the complainant to rectify the defects vide letter dated 10-10-2013. On 25-10-2013 complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party to cure the defects. On 2-1-2014 again Assistant Director of Agriculture sent letter to the complainant stating that the work should be completed within 31-1-2014 and inform them to get subsidy. But opposite party did not rectify the defects. The opposite party failed to construct the green house as per specifications and conditions agreed upon between the parties. By using the low quality and substandard net, holes have been developed in the net. Instead of sliding the door, another type of door was fitted and side curtain were not fitted. After completion of green house, water is seeping into the green house from all sides which made the green house unsuitable for cultivation purpose. Due to the above acts of the opposite party the complainant did not get subsidy from the State Horticulture Mission Kerala and has caused great mental agony and financial loss. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 5, 65,500/- and also to repair the poly house as per the specifications agreed upon with cost of this complaint to the complainant.
Complaint was admitted and notice issued for appearance of opposite party. After receiving the notice, opposite party did not appear before the forum. Hence set exparte.
The evidence adduced by the complainant consists of his chief affidavit and Ext. A1 to Ext. A5 are marked
The following issues are to be considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
Heard: - We have perused the documents on record. Complainant submitted that complainant entered an agreement with opposite party to construct a green house (Naturally Ventilated Tubular Structured Poly House) at a cost of Rs. 3,00,000/- as per specifications of State Horticulture Mission, Kerala and paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the opposite party for the construction of green house. As per Ext. A3 and Ext. A4 letters issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture Agali Palakkad there are some defects in the Green House constructed by the opposite party. Assistant Director of Agriculture intimated in their letter that the construction of green house should be completed within 31st January 2014 in order to get the subsidy. Otherwise complainant is not eligible for the subsidy. Already complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party to cure the defects of Green house. The opposite party failed to construct the green house as per specifications and conditions agreed upon between the parties. After completion of green house, water is seeping into the green house from all sides which made the green house unsuitable for cultivation purpose. Till this date the opposite party did not repair the green house. Hence the subsidy is not obtained to the complainant so far. But as per Ext. A2 if the construction of the green house completed within the time prescribed in the agreement, the complainant would be entitled to get the subsidy of Rs. 2,80,500/-. Moreover, it is also foremost duty of the complainant to rectify the defect within the time prescribed by the Agricultural officer. Assistant Director of Agriculture extended the time to rectify the defects from 10-10-2013 to 31-1-2014. But the complainant did not take any further steps to cure the defects to get subsidy. However the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Therefore the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss incurred by the complainant. As the opposite party not adduced any evidence to the contrary, the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged.
In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence we allow the complaint partly. Opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as compensation along with cost of Rs. 1000/-(Rupees Thousand only) to the Complainant within one month.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 11th day of July 2014.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of Lawyer Notice dated 25/10/2013
Ext.A2- Original of Proceedings State Horticulture Mission – Kerala Palakkad District
dated 05/01/2013.
Ext.A3 – Letter sent by Assistant Director of Agriculture Agali- Palakkad Dist to the
Complainant dated 02/01/2014
Ext.A4- Letter sent by Agricultural Officer Krishibhavan Puthur to the
Complainant dated 10/10/2013
Ext.A5 - Letter sent by Agricultural Officer Krishibhavan Puthur to the
Complainant (No.Kb/Pdr/07/01/2013-14)
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
NIl
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceeding.
