Complaint filed on: 01.09.2016
Complaint Disposed on:02.05.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.95/2016
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF MAY 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Sri.B.G.Devendra S/o Late Gidde Gowda,
Aged about 50 years, Coffee Planter,
R/o. Bidare Village, Kandy Hobli,
Chikmagalur Taluk & District.
(By Sri/Smt. Halekote A. Thejaswi, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
K.Krishna Naika S/o Kala Naika,
Aged about 48 years, R/o. Bevana
Halla, Dodda Thandya, Harappana
Halli Taluk, Davanagere District.
(OP -Exparte)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP alleging deficiency in service in not supplying the laborers to the estate of the complainant after receiving advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, complainant prays for direction against Op to refund the said amount along with interest @ 18% P.A. and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is a coffee planter having coffee estate in survey no.47 measuring 21 Acres 15 guntas, survey no.332 measuring 8 Acres 15 guntas, survey no.330 measuring 8 Acres, survey no.329 measuring 4 Acres 26 guntas at Bidare village, Kandya Hobli and he is eking his livelihood out of the cultivation of the coffee plants and growing coffee. The Op is the labour contractor, who used to supply the labours to the coffee plantation of the complainant and every time the Op used to receive the advance amount to supply the labours. Such being the case as usual on 02.06.2015 Op agreed to send 10 labours at the time of coffee picking for the year 2015 and received Rs.1,00,000/- from complainant in this regard. Op also executed one agreement for supply of the labours to the said estate for the year 2015-16. But after agreement the Op had not supplied the labours as agreed and has postponed to send the labours for one or other reasons. The complainant waited for nearly 15 days after lapse of the agreement, even after laps of the said 15 days the Op had not made any attempts to send the labours. The complainant without having any option engaged the other labours by paying more salary to the said labours and completed the work.
Op intentionally avoided sending the labours in order to gain wrongfully. Hence, Op rendered deficiency in service/unfair trade practice in sending the labours to the estate of the complainant.
The complainant issued a legal notice dated 08.06.2016 through both RPAD and Ordinary post. The ordinary post was served and registered post was refused by Op and called upon the Op to refund the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid towards the supply of labours, but even after service of legal notice through ordinary post Op had not repaid the said advance amount. Hence, complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice/deficiency in service and prays for direction against Op to refund the said Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% P.A. and compensation of Rs.50,000/- as prayed above.
3. This Forum has issued the cause notice to the Op. As per the postal endorsement dated 27.02.2017. The notice was delivered to Op on 25.10.2016. After service of notice Op not appeared before this Forum to answer the allegations. Hence, Op placed exparte.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.3.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. The case of the complainant is that he entered into an agreement with Op, who is the labour supplier to the estate of the complainant, for the purpose of supplying the labours to the coffee estate of the complainant for the year 2015-16. At the time of executing the agreement Op received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for supply of 10 labours for rainy season and 35 labours at the time of coffee picking in the year 2015, but after the agreement the Op had not supplied the labours to the complainant estate. The complainant had demanded the Op for supply of the labours, but Op postponed to supply the labours for one or other reasons. Having no option complainant engaged other labours to perform the plantation work and demanded for repayment of the advance amount from Op, but Op had not repaid the said advance amount. Hence, complainant alleges deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of Op and prays for direction against Op to refund the said amount with interest and compensation as prayed above.
9. Complainant also produced agreement entered between the Op and complainant marked as Ex.P.1, office copy of the legal notice marked as Ex.P.2, un served RPAD cover issued to Op marked as Ex.P.3 in support of his case.
10. On going through the agreement, the Op categorically agreed to supply the labours up to 10 members for coffee plantation and 35 skilled labours for coffee picking in the year 2015-16 and also endorsed that he received Rs.1,00,000/- an advance amount from complainant for supply of the labours, but complainant in his affidavit has sworn that Op had not supplied the labours for the particular work in the coffee estate. Due to non supply of the labours from Op complainant himself engaged other labours to complete the plantation work. But Op not appeared before this Forum to answer whether he failed to supply the labours or not. Hence, we are of the opinion that Op has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and also not supplied the labours to the complainant after receipt of the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from complainant, when the Op failed to supply the labours as agreed after receipt of the advance amount it amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. Hence, Op is liable to refund the said amount to the complainant. The Op is also liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service in not supplying the labours and also not refunding the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- inspite of legal notice of the complainant and also liable to pay litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees only) along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand Rupees only) for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- (One thousand Rupees only) litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 2nd day of May 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Agreement dtd:02.06.2015.
Ex.P.2 - Office copy of the legal notice.
Ex.P.3 - Un served RPAD cover.
Ex.P.3(a) - Cover opened, Original legal notice.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP:
NIL
Dated:02.05.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
