Kerala

Idukki

CC/08/194

Chacko Ouseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.M .Sura - Opp.Party(s)

Joseph Pathalil and Rosamma Joseph

28 Jul 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKIConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, Kuyilimala, Painavu PO-685603
CONSUMER CASE NO. 08 of 194
1. Chacko OusephPulimparambil House,Pullikkanam P.O,Pazhayakad,Vagamon(via),IdukkiIdukkiKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. K.M .SuraS/o Madhavan,Ozhukayil House,Kolahalamettu,Vettukuzhi Kara P.O,IdukkiIdukkiKerala2. ManiS/o Yesudas,Mattathil House,Kolahalamttu P.O,Kolahalamettu Kara,IdukkiIdukkiKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 28 Jul 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009


 

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER


 

C.C No.194/2008

Between

Complainant : Chacko Ouseph,

Pulimparambil House,

Pullikkanam P.O.

Pazhayakadu, Wagamon Via,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: Joseph Pathalil &

Rosamma Joseph Pathalil)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. K.M. Sura S/o Madhavan,

Ozhukayil House,

Kolahalamedu, Vedikuzhi Kara,

Vedikuzhi P.O,

Idukki District.

2. Mani S/o Yesudas,

Mattathil House,

Kolahalamedu P.O,

Kolahalamedu Kara,

Idukki District.

(Both by Adv: Jose Thomas)


 

O R D E R


 

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

 

Complainant is an employee of Pullikkanam Estate. Complainant contracted with the 1st and 2nd opposite party for the supply of Mulching grass in Pullikkanam Estate. As per the agreement created between the 1st opposite party and the complainant, on 07.06.2008, the 1st opposite party should supply 1 lakh kilogram of grass to the complainant. The rate for 1 kg of grass was 78 paise. On 07.06.2008 the complainant paid Rs.16,000/- to the 1st opposite party and on 08.06.2008 the complainant paid another sum of Rs.7,500/- to the 1st opposite party as Advance. The agreement was to supply the grass within a period of three months. But the 1st opposite party never supplied Mulching grass to the complainant as per the agreement. Another agreement was created between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party on 05.06.2008 for the supply of Mulching grass in Pullikkanam Estate and thus the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- as advance to the 2nd opposite party on the same date. But the said opposite party also never supplied grass to the complainant. The complainant suffered a loss of 1 lakh by the act of 1st opposite party and Rs.25,000/- by the act of 2nd opposite party. So this petition is filed for getting compensation against the opposite parties for the same.


 

2. The opposite party filed written version, as per the written version the opposite party admitted the agreement created between the 1st opposite party and the complainant. But the grass was supplied to Pullikkanam Estate in the name of complainant by the 1st opposite party within 45 days. But the complainant paid only 75 paise instead of 78 paise per kilogram as per the agreement. The complainant have to give Rs.1,400/- to the opposite party when the accounts were settled. The complainant hesitated to give the amount and so the complainant and opposite party are keeping enimity, not in good terms. There was no agreement created between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party. But the 2nd opposite party admitted that the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- as advance to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has supplied grass for Rs.6,000/- in the name of the complainant in Pullikkanam Estate. The 2nd opposite party denied to continue work for the complainant. There are clear records in the Tea company that the opposite party acted according to the task entrusted on them. So there is no deficiency in the part of opposite party.


 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?


 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony DW1 and DW2 and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on the side of the opposite parties.


 

5. The POINT:- Complainant is filed for getting compensation for non-supplying of Mulching grass in Pullikkanam Estate as per the agreement. Complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that an agreement was created between PW1 and the 1st opposite party for the supply of grass, on 07.06.2008, the agreement was to supply grass within 3 months. An advance of Rs.16,000/- was also paid by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. The agreement is marked as Ext.P1, Another agreement was created between 2nd opposite party and the complainant, on 05.06.2008 for the supply of grass, an advance of Rs.5,000/- also paid, which is marked as Ext.P2. But both the opposite parties never supplied the grass as per the agreement. The 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1. DW1 deposed that the Ext.P1 was created between the 1st opposite party and the complainant. DW1 is a witness in the agreement. But the second agreement is a forged one. DW1 never signed in Ext.P2 agreement. But he admitted that an advance of Rs.5,000/- was received from the complainant for the supply of grass. They have supplied the grass to Pullikkanam Estate as per the advance and agreement. Opposite party have supplied 12,000 kg of grass and amount of Rs.7,800/- was received as total. No receipt is received for the same.


 

DW2 is the General Manager of the Pullikkanam Estate. DW2 deposed that it is seen from Ext.R1 and R2 ledger copy, the complainant has supplied Mulching grass in Pullikkanam Estate as per the contract between the complainant and the Estate. Ext.R1 and Ext.R2 are the ledger copy with voucher for the same. Total 83,410 kg of grass were supplied by the complainant. But when the learned counsel for the opposite party cross examined the complainant, the complainant replied that he is not aware of the supply of the grass to the company by the opposite party.


 

So it means that the sufficient quantity of grass as per the agreement was supplied to Pullikkanam Estate. But the complainant is not aware of that fact. Then we think it is possible to believe the version of the opposite party that he had supplied the same. So there is no deficiency is seen from the part of opposite party.


 

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.


 


 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of July, 2009.


 

Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

 

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

 

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

 

 

APPENDIX


 

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Chacko

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - Mani

DW2 - C. Chandran

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Agreement dated 07.06.2008

Ext.P2 - Agreement dated 05.06.2008

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Copy of Ledger

Ext.R2 - Cash Payment Voucher


HONORABLE Sheela Jacob, MemberHONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan, PRESIDENTHONORABLE Bindu Soman, Member