IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the    15^th Day of  October  2022

    Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

            Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member

                        Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                                                              CC.297/2015

K.Mohanan Pillai                                                        :           Complainant

Pratheeksha, Kanyakuzhi

Punukkannoor, Perumpuzha P.O

Kollam-691504.

[By Adv.S.Riyas]

V/s

K.G.Girish Kumar                                                      :           Opposite party

Executive Director

Province Agri System

T.C.7/7683, Souparnika

Maruthankuzhy, Kanjirampara P.O

Thiruvananthapuram, Pin-695030.

[By Adv.Victor D’Silva, Adv.Rajesh.R.

Adv.Arshambika.M, Adv.Swapna.S.S

&Adv.Maruthadi.R.Sreeraj]

FINAL  ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President

            This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

            The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

            The complainant who  is an  Ex-Service man was eager to start  vegetable  cultivation in  a poly house.  The opposite party is the  Executive Director of  Province Agri system, a proprietary concern engaged in the construction of  poly house.  The complainant contacted the opposite party through e-mail.  After discussion the opposite party agreed to construct poly house  having an area of 480 sq. meter for an estimated amount of Rs.6,40,000/-.  Accordingly on 23.03.2015 the complainant and the opposite party entered into an agreement.   A time schedule was also fixed  for the completion of the construction work and also for payment.  Within one week the opposite party obtained an amount of Rs.4,16,000/- in two installments  from the complainant and also demanded the full payment even before starting the work which is against the terms of the agreement.  The opposite party had not completed the construction of the work of poly house within the time frame.  The cut of date for completion of the work was 26.04.2015.  The opposite party had also not supervised the construction work which was carried out by the unskilled  employees.  The opposite party had visited the work site only once and he was not carried to engage technically qualified employees to carry out the work.  Therefore the construction of the poly house was defective and was not in accordance with the specification of State Horti Culture Mission and  also the terms as per the agreement. 

The major defects in the construction are that the foundation work were not as per specification.  There was defect in fitting insect net, fitting of apron, nuts and bolts used for the construction was not as per the specifications, the brackets full and half used for construction was of poor quality and having no sufficient strength.  Instead of avoiding welding process of the poly house the opposite party has constructed the  ante room with full welding joints.  The opposite party has fitted  under size sliding door and due to that there is wide gap between the door and door frame.  The side curtain fitted was against the specification and is fixed improperly.  Instead of using UV film manufactured by Ginegar company  the opposite party used inferior quality  local three layer UV sheet which is against the agreement.  The gutter installed with pieces of coils and it is overlapping and will lead to leakage.  The opposite party fitted disc-filter  before the fustigation assembly and it defeated the very purpose of a filter.  The foggers were not working , heavy leak from almost all joints of fogger and drip system was found.  The opposite party installed flushing point of the drip system inside the poly house in a defective manner.  Only 81 foggers were installed instead of installing 100 foggers required for 480 sq.metre area.  Overhead PVC pipe line of fogger system were defective.  The complainant got electric connection only on 03.09.2015 and thereafter when the complainant operated the system it was found that foggers were not working.  Heavy leaks form almost all joints of foggers and drip system and ventury system found cracked and not functioning.  Though the complainant demanded to rectification of the defects but  the opposite party has not set right the above defects. 

It is further alleged that towards the end of construction work the opposite party send the workers without paying money.  Hence the complainant was constrained to pay the money to the workers for their day to day needs.  The complainant had paid total sum of  Rs.11090/- towards the purchase of PVC pipe, day to day expenses of workers and other materials  for completing the work.  The opposite party was bound to construct the poly house in accordance with the quotation and specification issued by SHM.  The opposite party did not visit the site even after repeated demands.  The opposite party ought to have completed the construction on or before 26^th April 2015 as per agreement.  The opposite party did not care to complete the construction of poly house in time.  Even now it is an incomplete poly house.  So the agreement stipulate for training to labours or the complainant.  But the opposite party did not give any training or assistance mentioned in the agreement.  Because of the lapse of the opposite party in completing the construction, the complainant lost a crop season which caused heavy loss, mental agony and pain.  The opposite party violated the terms of the contract.  The delayed and defective construction of opposite party caused heavy loss to the complaint.  The opposite party also did not fulfill the after sale service responsibilities that should have been provided as per SHM guideline.  The opposite party is a recommended agency of SHM in their publication given to the farmers as guide.  There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  In the circumstances the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

            The opposite  party resisted the complaint by filing a detailed version raising the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  However the opposite party would admit that he has constructed a poly house for the complainant by complying all the specifications of the State Horticulture Mission Circular and as per the invoices and also with the terms and conditions of the contract dated 23.03.2015 executed between the parties.  As per the terms of the contract the complainant did not do the preliminary works such as land cleaning, leveling, earth filling etc. before the construction of the poly house.

            As per the quotation between the parties the rate was initially fixed for Rs.7,21,600/-.  But subsequently, the complainant insisted to avoid the installation of the automation system for the poly house construction.  Hence after negotiation the contractual amount was fixed for Rs.6,40,000/- and an MoU was signed at Trivandrum on 23.03.2015.  On the next day work order was given by the complainant by paying the installation amount of Rs.1,60,000/-.  Before starting the construction of poly house the opposite party brought to the notice of the complainant that he had not done the undertaken works such as land cleaning, leveling, earth filling etc.  But in response to that the complainant requested and insisted the opposite party to do those works and he would pay for the same on the next bill payment.  So the opposite party constrained to complete land preparations like land clearing, leveling, earth filling etc. by spending money from his own pocket.  When the stub concrete was completed, the opposite party requested the complainant to pay the 2^nd installment along with the charges of additional work done for land preparation amounting Rs.17,000/-.  But the complainant paid only Rs.2,56,000/- on 30.03.2015  for the stub concrete and told that he would pay the amount for land preparation only on the final settlement.  The opposite party was also requested to do some other extra works other than the contractual work along with the fabrication erection work such as fixing of stay wire for creeper net for the plants.  Accordingly it was done by the opposite party and the cost for the fixation of  stay wire for creeper net came around of Rs.40,000/-.  As the complainant has not done the land leveling properly before handling over the land it caused much difficulties to the opposite party to maintain stub top at the same level.  But the opposite party managed to do the stub concrete successfully and erected the structure over it without any compromise to its quality or strength.  The allegations that stubs were re concreted are incorrect.  The opposite party has provided extra cross pipes for extra support/wind resistance and now the petitioner is raising a complaint on additional work done by the opposite party willfully to raise false allegations.

            The whole work has been done by skilled workers under the supervision of qualified skilled supervisor.  The claim that the petitioner has spent extra Rs.50,000/- to rectify leveling issue is absolutely false.  There is no bend in the main column or in any other column as alleged.  There is no contract or as per SHM specification regarding the fixation of insect net as a single piece for poly house is not at all available in the market.  There are no guidelines that the insect net should be fixed with aluminium profiles  at corners.  Fixing apron sheet in overlapping style is quite common in poly house work.  There was no commitment from the side of the opposite party to fit galvanized nuts and bolts at all joints as alleged.  But the opposite party fixed galvanized nuts and parts in all critical joints and done extra protection with painting to ensure lasting.  The allegation raised by the petitioner about brackets is absolutely incorrect and false.  The allegation of the complainant that the outside curtains should be raised fully is absolutely incorrect.  The curtain has been raised manually by workers/petitioner to the height as desired by the complainant.  Specifically made handles were provided for this purpose.  No commitment was given by the opposite party to fix Ginegar brand UV  sheets in poly house either by agreement or by quotation.  But the opposite party used reputed brand in market which is number one brand in India and of best quality.  There was no commitment to fix single piece of GI sheet in gutter either by agreement or by term in quotation.  All fittings and valves for plumbing are done as per instructions given by the complainant till installment.

            The size of poly house constructed for the complainant is 480 sq.m.  After deducting walking space the actual cropped area will come to 392 sq.m for which 72 foggers are required as per terms in quotation given.  But actually 81 foggers were fixed in this case.  The opposite party had supplied all items mentioned in the quotation and had not cheated the complainant.  The allegation with regard to the pipe  is incorrect.  The pipe may be damaged due to improper and hard usage of pulleys by his workers later for which the opposite party is not responsible.  As per the contract the complainant has to provide electrical power supply water facility and accommodation the labourers at the work site.  But the complainant could not able to supply water and arrange accommodation for the labourers as agreed and further most of the time there was no power supply during the period of construction.  Owing to these reasons and circumstances the opposite party could not be able to finish the work in time as stipulated in the contract.  The system was tested to the satisfaction of the petitioner after completing the work.  After  commissioning and testing the total system the opposite party had issued invoice for settling the amount.  But there after the complainant backed out from giving settling the amount by saying flimsy reasons.  The complainant denied taking professional technical support from the opposite party to do cultivation in poly house which requires strict scientific protocol to get successful crop and climate control inside.  As the complainant did not avail technology support his workers likely to follow traditional way of crop cultivation and due to improper use of foggers inside humidity will increase leading to disease incidence.  The opposite party is not responsible for the same.

            After scientific completion of the poly house the opposite party evaded to make remaining payment as well as payment for the additional work and when the opposite party insisted for the final settlement, the complainant refused to make the remaining payment of Rs.1,21,000/-  and refused to accept the technological services offered by the opposite party as per the terms of the contract. The poly house has no defect in any manner.  The averments that the opposite party did not give any training or assistance to the laborers nor he visited the site except twice is utter falsehood.  The opposite party  entered construction work from beginning to the end.  The opposite party is having several years experience in the field of poly house construction and its functioning.  As the opposite party told the complainant that  he would file the case  against him for settlement of account and compensation, so he immediately filed this case to overcome his liability by claiming false allegations against the opposite party though the poly house was constructed free of defect and as per the specifications of the State Horticulture Mission and the materials used was as per the said specifications. 

            The complainant has availed subsidy for the poly house from the Department of Agriculture.  The Department officials conducted unit verification and sanctioned him eligible assistance after ensuring that the poly house was constructed as per specifications stipulated by the State Horticulture Mission.  If the poly house was constructed with low quality materials or sub standard workmanship subsidy would not have been sanctioned.  After availing assistance from government which will be sanctioned through strict specification check, the complainant approached this Forum to evade from settling final payment due to the opposite party.

            The complainant has not incurred any monitory loss as alleged in the complaint.  The complainant has filed the present complaint as a counter blast of the case which was intended to be filed against him by the opposite party claiming balance amount of Rs.1,21,000/-.

In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there was delay in constructing the poly house by the opposite party and whether the complainant has sustained any loss on account of the alleged delay?
2. Whether the poly house constructed by the opposite party for the complainant as per Ext.P4 agreement was defective and the materials used for construction was substandard as alleged in the complaint?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in constructing poly house as alleged in the complaint?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation on various ground claimed in the complaint?
5. Reliefs and costs.

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 to 3 and Ext.A1 to A11 documents.  Evidence on the side of the opposite party consists of the oral evidence of DW1 and Ext.D1 series, D2, D3 series, D4 series, D5 and  D6 documents.  The Expert Commission has been examined as CW1 and the report filed by  expert  is marked as Ext.C1. 

Both sides have filed notes of argument.  Heard both sides in detail.

Point No.1to 4

For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 4 points are considered together.  The reliefs sought for in the complaint are compensation on 3 counts.  According to the complainant there are certain defects in the construction of the poly house and inorder to get the defect cured he requires compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The  2^nd ground for seeking compensation is that he sustained loss of  harvesting period due to the delay in completing poly house and also he sustained loss  of 1^st crop due to defective construction for which he claims Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.  The 3^rd ground for seeking compensation is mental agony suffered by the complainant for which he seeks compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

The following are the admitted facts in this case.  Opposite party is  a person engaged in the construction of poly house. Both the complainant and opposite party on 23.03.2015 entered into a contract for construction of  poly house at the property of the complainant.  The agreement was to construct the poly house in accordance with the specifications of the State Horti Culture Mission and as per the terms of the contract.   A payment schedule was also shown in the agreement.  Both parties would admit that there occurred delay in construction of the poly house.  But according to the complainant the construction of poly house was incomplete and there are several defects in the construction and there is delay in carrying out the construction work. 

Now the question to be considered is whether there is any breach of the terms of the agreement and  whether the opposite party has violated the specification of the State Horti Culture Mission in the construction the poly house.

According to the complainant there is inordinate delay in completing the construction work of the poly house within the time frame.  Admittedly Ext.A4 is the agreement and as per clause 2(A) of Ext.A4 agreement  the construction of poly house has been completed as per specifications and rate specified in the invoice and within the period of 45 days from the date of work order and receipt of advance.  Ext.A1 dated 05.02.2015 is the communication accepting to carry out the work as per quotation and also acknowledgement of receipt of token amount of  advance of Rs.10,000/-.  As per clause 2(A) of Ext.A4 agreement the opposite party is bound to complete the work within 45 days from the date of work order and receipt of advance.  However the cut of date as per the averments in the complaint, for completing the construction was 26.04.2015.  But it is brought out in evidence through DW1 that the initial agreement was for constructing poly house for Rs.7,21,600/- but subsequently as insisted by the complainant Automation System was dropped from the quotation and reduced the amount from Rs.7,21,600/- to 6,40,000/- and executed one MOU on 23.03.2015 and as the next day ie on 24.03.2015 the complainant has entrusted Rs.1,60,000/- and received the work order.  In the circumstance the date of work order should be considered as 24.03.2015.  The time gap for completing the poly house construction is 45 days.  Hence the opposite party is expected to complete the construction work on or before 07.05.2015.  However the last installment was seen paid on 26.08.2015 which would indicate that the construction was going on even on that day.

  According to the complainant as the opposite party has failed to complete the construction work on or before the period stipulated in and hence the agreement he sustained much loss.  According to him he sustained heavy loss due to the loss in harvesting period due to the delay in completion of poly house.  The complainant has estimated that loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The opposite party would resist the above claim by raising the following contentions.  According to the opposite party the complainant failed to carry out the preliminary work such as land cleaning, levelling, earth filling etc. before starting construction work of the poly house which  caused delay in starting the work.  Though the opposite party brought that fact to the notice of the complainant he did not care to carry out the above preliminary works.  Therefore the opposite party undertaken to carry out the above preliminary works on condition to pay additional charges and that he has spend an amount of Rs.17,000/- for the said preliminary works.  But the complainant has not  paid that amount  though he assured to pay the same.  However the complainant in paragraph 6 of the proof affidavit has sworn that the complainant himself was carried out the preliminary works such as ground leveling etc. and thereafter the officials of the State Horticulture Mission visited the spot and accorded sanction for construction of poly house on that plot.  Further down the complainant has specifically sworn that the opposite party has neither leveled the plot nor prepared the ground suitable for construction of the poly house and all those works were carried out by the complainant at his own cost and the officials of the State Horticulture Mission has taken photograph of the plot.  PW2 cooli worker has also deposed that he had carried out the land levelling work at the plot and the complainant has paid the cooli for the said work.  Though PW1 and PW2 have been subjected to severe cross examination the above aspect deposed by them has not been seriously challenged or disputed by the opposite party.  Though DW1 would claim that he carried out the preliminary work such as levelling the land etc. and paid Rs.17000/- on that count.  No documentary evidence has been adduced to prove that he spend any amount on that count.  In view of the version discussed above the contention of the opposite party  that the delay was caused due to non levelling and preparing land for construction of the poly house is devoid of any merit. 

Yet another ground urged by the opposite party to justify the delay in construction of the poly house is that the complainant has not arranged electricity and water and has also not arranged accommodation for the works as stated in Ext.A4 agreement.  But he has no such case when PW1 was in the witness box.  This fact has also not been stated in Ext.A10 reply notice send on behalf of the opposite party except saying that if any delay occurred in completion of the work it is only because of the fact of your client(complainant).  What are the fault is not stipulated either in Ext.A10 reply notice which is the earliest version nor asked to PW1 when he was in the witness box. It is true that admittedly the electric supply was obtained to the poly house only during the month of September.  But it is brought out in evidence through PW1&PW2  that the complainant has been residing just adjacent to the poly house site.  Therefore he could have very well obtained electricity and water supply for that residence and the opposite party has no case that the complainant has not allowed the opposite party to collect water and electricity from his residence. It is also brought out in evidence through PW1 that the workers were accommodated at the nearby residence of the sister of the complainant.  In the circumstances the non supply of electricity, water and non furnishing accommodation to the labourers are not correct and the same are not sufficient grounds to protract the construction work of poly house. 

The  learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently argued and also stated in the notes of argument that Ext.C1 report  of the Expert Commissioner is not acceptable and the allegation that  the construction was conducted in breach of the SHM guidelines and terms of agreement and quotation is incorrect.  It is further argued that the expert commissioner has noted the violation of  SHM rules and violation of agreement and quotation on the basis of here say  information and therefore not acceptable.  But on perusal of Ext.C1 report the oral evidence of the expert commissioner who has been examined as CW1 and the oral evidence of PW2  we find no merit in the above contention especially when defects are clearly pointed out in C1 report and the same was  deposed by PW2.

             Another contention of the opposite party is that this case has been filed by the complainant as a counter blast for Ext.D2 case.  But on evaluating the entire materials available on record we find no merit in the above contention.

            Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that the complainant had never approached  State Horticulture Mission or the Agricultural Department against the opposite party for the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite party nor demanded cancellation of accreditation of the opposite party agency and the above nonfeasance of the complainant would show that there was actually no defect in the poly house construction and that is why he has not approached any of the Forum stated above.  It is true that the complainant has not approached SHM or Agricultural Department nor taken any steps to cancel the accreditation of the opposite party agency.  But the same  not sufficient  grounds to  throw away the case of the complainant especially when those agencies are not intending to deal with any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice alleged against the opposite party who is a service provider and this Forum/commission  is the only agency empowered to deal with and consider those aspects.  In the circumstances we find no merit in the above contention also.

It is clear from the available materials that the complainant has lost one cultivation season due to the delayed, incompetent and defective construction of  the poly house.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation on that count.  However the complainant has claimed huge compensation of  Rs.2,00,000/- on this count.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the above claim is highly excessive and exorbitant .  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that an amount of Rs.50,000/- will be reasonable compensation under this head.

The next major ground alleged in the complaint is that defective construction of poly house by the opposite party which resulted in heavy loss to the complainant.  The defective work according to the complainant is due to three reasons which are (i) use of substandard materials for the construction (ii) employment of unskilled labours and (iii) lack of supervision.  According to the complainant the opposite party has constructed the poly house in a negligent manner without observing the specifications of  SHM for poly house construction and also without observing terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement and quotation furnished  by the opposite party.  It is true that  the opposite party has denied  the above allegations in the complaint.  But the oral evidence of PW1&2, CW1 coupled with  Ext.A8 series photographs would substantiate that the construction of the poly house carried out by the opposite party is defective in several respects and the expert commissioner in Page No.17 of C1 report has stated that on his inspection he identified variety of 12 areas which requires immediate remedial works which are :-

1. Correction of  Telescopic Foundation(alignment and height) of east end of the poly house(Total 7 numbers)
2. Extension of roof 60 to 70 cm on all the four side to avoid rain water entering inside the poly house.
3. Change of UV sheet, which becomes short  of width due to side extension of the poly house.
4. Re work of sliding door and frame.
5. Lowering of Apron to 60 cm height.
6. Insect net change.
7. Correcting of gutter slop to 2% to facilitate free flow of rain water and doing anti corrosive treatment.
8. Correcting the flap curtain rods avoiding the damage of insect net during lowering and raising of the curtain and changing locking device clamps.
9. Re align of the fogger system above the path way, presently it is above the bed.
10. Re positioning the drip laterals as per the plant rows.
11. Installation of primary filter and repositioning of disc filter after fertigation system.
12. Changing the one and half inch diameter outlet of storage tank to two inch diameter outlet because the motor head is of two inch diameter.

It is further stated in Ext.C1 report that all the defective items identified and stated in the body of  the report are legitimate defect items that demonstrate the contractor  has not complied with the statutory obligations and warranties.  In the conclusion portion of C1 report it is specifically stated that poly house constructed by the opposite party is found to have constructed in breach of SHM guideline, terms of the quotation and agreement.  Even according to DW1, the opposite  party CW1, the Commissioner is an expert in the field.

      The oral evidence of PW2 also would probabilise the case  of the complainant that the construction was very defective and substandard one.  According to PW2 BZ-ys¯ tIm¬{Ioäv Ignªv  tress work  \S-¯n-b-t¸mÄ  XqWp-IÄ Ncn-ªp.  AXp-sIm­v c­m-aXv tIm¬{Ioäv  sNt¿-­n-h-¶p.  At¸mÄ ]mdbpw, saäepw Cd¡n  ho­pw  c­m-aXv hmZn-bpsS Bh-i-y-{]-Imcw Xd-bn a®v fill sNbvXv  seh sNbvXp.  AXnsâ Iqen hmZn-bmWv X¶-Xv.  ]n¶oSv t]mfn luknsâ G I joäv sIm­pÅ ]m¯n MRF epoxy paint sNbvXp.  AXv shÅw sI«nInS¶v Xpcp-s¼-Sp-¯n-cp-¶p.  AXv aq¶v {]mh-iyw s]bvâv sNbvXp.   During cross examination of PW2 it is brought out in evidence that  \n§Ä Xq¬ Ncnªp F¶v ]d-bp-¶Xv GXv Zni-bn-emWv (Q)  dq^v CSp-¶-Xn\p ap¶mse FÃm XqWp-Ifpw Ncn-ªn-cp¶p (A) F{X-am{Xw Ncn-ªn-cp-¶p. (Q)  Ncnª XqWp-IÄ adnªp hoWn-cp-¶p. Sn adnªp hoW XqWp-IÄ 2 C©v hy-X-ym-k-ap-Å-h-bm-bn-cp-¶p.  tIm¬{Io-täm-Sp-Iq-Sn-bmWv adnªp hoW-Xv. 

     In view of the above evidence of  PW1, PW2 and CW1 coupled with Ext.C1 report it is crystal clear that the construction work of the poly house  carried out by the opposite party is very poor and sub standard one and not in accordance with the specifications and terms and conditions of the agreement and quotation.

According to the complainant he has to spend Rs.2,00,000/- for curing the defects in the construction.  But he has not adduced any evidence to substantiate that fact.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that Rs.2,00,000/- claimed on this count is highly excessive.  However in paragraph 7 of the proof affidavit  PW1  has sworn that the poly house has been constructed by using sub standard materials and hence the durability of the poly house has been reduced substantially.  He constructed the poly house on the assurance that the structure of the poly house can be used for about 25 years.  But now the poly house has become useless due to the use of sub standard materials.  The opposite party has also not given free maintenance for 1 year as per the instruction of the SHM.  He has also not turned up and  verified the functioning of  poly house after getting electric connection during the 1^st month of September.  Though the complainant has attempted to contact the opposite party over phone he has not turned up nor verified the functioning of the poly house.  Hence the complainant caused to test the functioning  of poly house by deputing expert in the field and thereupon he found leaks and the complainant has set right the above defect on his own expenses.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the defects pointed out above we are of the view that Rs.1,00,000/- is sufficient to cure the defects noted by CW1 expert commission in Ext.C1 report and deposed by CW1 and PW2 noted above.

      According to the complainant  he has sustained much mental agony apart from financial loss due to the delayed construction and also due to defective and substandard construction of the poly house.  It is clear from the available materials that the complainant has lost the cultivation of one crop due to the delayed construction of the poly house.  He has also not constructed the pending works after receiving the last installment nor given training to the complainant and staff regarding the functioning of the poly house.  On evaluating the entire  materials on record it is crystal clear that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in the construction of the poly house.  Therefore the claim of the complainant that he has sustained much mental agony apart from financial loss is substantiated.  The complainant claims Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony suffered by the complainant.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the above claim is also excessive and compensation to the tune of  Rs.25000/- will be reasonable and sufficient compensation for mental agony. The point answered accordingly.

Point No.5

In view of our finding with regard to point No.1 to 3 we find merit in the complaint and the same stands allowed in the following terms.

1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of complaint as compensation for the loss sustained to the complainant on account of the delayed construction of the poly house.
2. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @6% p.a  from the date of complaint towards the expenses met by the complainant to set right the defective and improper construction of the poly house by the opposite party.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- along with interest @6% p.a from the date of complaint towards mental agony sustained by the complainant.
4. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of the proceedings.
5. The opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from today failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the amount covered by relief no.i to iv with interest @ 9% p.a except for costs from the date of complaint till realization from the opposite party and the assets of  Province Agri System.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the  15^th  day of  October   2022.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

       S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

Stanly Harold:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

Senior Superintendent

INDEX  

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1    :           Mohanan Pillai

PW2    :           Sujith.S

CW1    :           Sunil.B

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext A1:           Copy of letter from G Tech Agro Industries to the complainant and gmail  accepting the proposal made by the opposite party and confirmation.

Ext A2:           Copy of proceedings from State Horticulture Mission Kollam District dated 16.12.2014.

Ext.A3:           Copy of G mail communication dated 17.12.2014 and revised quotation issued by  Girish Kumar to Mohanan Pillai.

Ext.A4 :          True photo copy of agreement.

Ext.A5(S/P)    :True photo  copy of  invoice and tax invoice issued by Fortune Agri

  System.

Ext.A6            : True photo copy of  Bank statement of Complainant  for the period from 01.02.2015 to 29.07.2015 issued by SBT Kundara branch.

Ext.A7            : True copy of  details of poly house covering film product.

Ext.A8 series(S/P): Photographs and CD.

Ext.A9            :Copy of Lawyer Notice dated   /09/2015.

Ext.A10          :True photo copy of Reply notice  dated 21.10.2015.

Ext.A11          :True photo copy of subsidy agreement.

Ext.C1 :Technical report

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-

DW1               :           Gireesh Kumar.

Documents marked for the opposite party:-

Ext.D1 series:       Copy of Electronic document downloaded from the website of the company about Suncool Multilayer Agri Films.

Ext.D2            :       Copy of OS.1420/16  in the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

Ext.D3 series:        Reply of RTI.

Ext.D4 series:        Copy of RTI and chalan.

Ext.D5            :           True copy of G-mail communication dated 21.11.2014.

Ext.D6            :           Copy of test certificate from plastics testing centre.