Date of filing : 18-11-2009 Date of order : 11-10-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C.252/09 Dated this, the 11th day of October 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER M.D.Antony, S/o.Devassia, R/at Mattathilanickal House, } Complainant Kayakunnu, Plachikkara.Po. Parappa Via, Hosdurg Taluk & District. (Adv. Roy Paul, Hosdurg) Joy Kochupurackal, } Opposite party R/at Kochupurackal House, Parakkadavu, Panathur.Po, Panathady Village, Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod.Dist (Adv.C.K.Krishnakumar, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.KT.SIDHIQ,PRESIDENT In short case of the complainant is as follows:- Complainant purchased 2500Kg dried Tapioca from opposite party at the rate of `19/- per Kg on the representation of opposite party that the dried tapioca is of superior quality. The sample is shown to the complainant prior to sale. He is satisfied and placed the order for the tapioca. Accordingly opposite party delivered 2625 Kg dried tapioca in 48 gunny bags at the premises of the complainant. Subsequently it is found that only on the upper layer of each bag contains good quality dried tapioca and the rest were not fit for human consumption. The complainant purchased the said tapioca with an aim to supply to some of his relatives and friends. Though complainant requested opposite party to take back the tapioca or refund the money opposite party refused. Thereby complainant had suffered a loss of `49,875/- towards the purchase cost of the tapioca. Therefore the complaint for an order of `49,875/- together with a compensation of `25,000/- and cost of the proceedings. 2. According to opposite party complainant is a tapioca business man and opposite party is a tapioca cultivator. Complainant purchased the tapioca after satisfying the quality of the dried tapioca. In Jan 2009 the complainant with K.M.John and employees came to the house of opposite party for taking the dried tapioca and complainant brought 48 sacks and filled it dried tapioca with the help of employees and took away the goods after paying the consideration. The complainant has raised the allegation only after elapsing 6 months of purchase. On 25-08-2009 opposite party received lawyer notice issued at the instance of the complainant and for enquiry opposite party went to the house of complainant and at that time it is found that the dried tapioca were kept in an open thatched old shed not properly covered on the top and the ground was fully covered by white ants and the said thatched shed was belongs to a third party. The dried tapioca is a food item which is easily perishable in such improper preservance. The thatched shed get we due to heavy rain in the month of Feb 2009 and being a business man the complainant retained the dried tapioca due to the decrease in the market value. The failure to take adequate measures for preserving the dried tapioca may ruined it. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the complaint deserves a dismissal. 3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 & A2 marked. One K.M.Johnson examined as PW2. Opposite party filed affidavit in support of his contentions. Both sides heard. Documents verified. 4. The opposite party advanced the contention that complainant is not a consumer since the dried tapioca he purchased is large quantity never intended for his personal consumption and the complainant is a seller of dried tapioca. 5. Against this contention complainant pleaded that he purchased the dried tapioca to distribute among the members of a bio-farming group in which he is also a member. The said contention is not acceptable. Had it been intended for the distribution among the members of the society then why did he stocked it in a third parties thatched shed for months without distributing the same is remained unexplained. Further it is seen that the complainant raised his allegation only after 6 months from the date of purchase of dried tapioca. Had it been a commodity which is unfit for consumption then the complainant would have informed the same to opposite party then and there itself and he should have brought necessary action immediately. Most importantly no expert report by any authority is submitted before us regarding the quality of the dried tapioca and no steps were also taken to prove the quality and its causes for the damage if any caused to it.. Therefore the complaint lacks merits and hence it is dismissed. However, both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Copy of lawyer notice. A2. Postal acknowledgement card PW1. Antony PW2. Johnson DW1.Joy Kochupurakkal MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ | 
