CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Palakkad, Kerala

Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2013

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi A.K, Member Date of filing: 22/11/2012

CC / 212 / 2012

Balakrishnagupthan. P,

S/o. Kunjhukuttaguptan,

Pattissiri House, Sreekishnapuram 2 Village,

Kattukulam Amsham Desham,

Kattukulam (PO),

Ottapalam Taluk, Pin- 679 514. : Complainant

(By Adv. K.R. Kochunarayanan &

Adv. P. Narayanankutty)

Vs

1. K.M. Durgadas,

S/o. Kuttikrishnan Nambyar,

Karinpanakkal House, Kattukulam (PO),

Ottapalam Taluk, Pin- 679 514.

2. M.M. Georgekutty,

RET (BIOGAS), KVIC-Reg.No.13,

C/o. Nadathara Rural Development Society,

Nadathara P.O, Thrissur Dt.

Pin – 680 751

3. Rajendran,

Contractor, RET(BIOGAS), KVIC-Reg.No.13,

C/o. Nadathara Rural Development Society,

Nadathara P.O, Thrissur Dt.,

Pin – 680 751.

(Deleted as per order in IA 187A/13)

4. Assistant Director,

Kerala State Khadi & Village Industries Commission,

Nadathara P.O, Thrissur Dt.,

Pin – 680 751. : Opposite parties

( By Adv. P. Ranjith Kumar)

O R D E R

By Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

The 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties had approached the complainant to construct the Biogas plant for an amount of Rs. 24,000/-. Further 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties informed that the Bio technology department of 4^th opposite party has started a programme of Biogas scheme and as per the programme Rs. 8,000/- will be got as subsidy amount to construct the Biogas plant. Believing the words of 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties, complainant constructed a Biogas plant with a cost of Rs. 24,000/- in the month of January 2011 as KVIC/MMG/No.2010/2011/7. The neighbour of complainant also constructed the biogas plant as per the direction of 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties. As per the direction of 2^nd opposite party, his contractor 3^rd opposite party has completed the construction of Biogas plant. 2^nd opposite party is the Rural Energy Technician under the 4^th opposite party. At the time of constructing the Biogas plant the complainant has paid Rs. 24,000/- for construction. Further 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties demanded Rs. 1,000/- as additional amount to the complainant. Then the complainant demanded receipt for payment of additional amount and the opposite parties had not ready to give receipt. There after the complainant knew that the neighbours were given Rs.1,000/- as additional amount for constructing the Biogas plant. So they had got the cheques of subsidy amount. In short the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties had not given the subsidy amount to the complainant as not to get illegal demand of Rs. 1,000/. The 4^th opposite party has not directed proper way to get the subsidy amount to the complainant. More over the complainant is a senior citizen and the non availability of the subsidy amount causes much mental agony. The opposite parties are liable to pay the subsidy amount. On 12/12/2011 the complainant sent a notice to the Director of 4^th opposite party for getting the cheque of subsidy amount. Then the Director received the notice and demands report to the 2^nd opposite party. Thereafter no steps was taken. The complainant sent a lawyer notice dated 18/8/2012 to 2^nd opposite party and the notice returned. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, restrictive and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant prays on order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 8,000/- as the subsidy amount and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for damages with 12% interest and the cost of the proceedings.

4^th opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The main objective of the 4^th opposite party is to provide necessary assistance and co-operation to the applicants who file the applications as per the Rules and norms laid down by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission. As the programme all the persons who wish to get a subsidy for installation of a Biogas plant must submit the application form in the manner directed and by answering to all the queries and adhering to the rules of Khadi Commission. The Commission does not charge anything for the work applied by the Commission. The 4^th opposite party did not receive any application from the complainant. Hence 4^th opposite party has not paid anyone any supervision charge. The 4^th opposite party has never appointed the 2^nd opposite party as his Rural Energy Technician and has never paid any supervision charge to him. Since the complainant has not availed any service from 4^th opposite party he is not a consumer of them.

The 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties who are being projected a negotiators are not known to the 4^th opposite party and no relation with them. The 2^nd opposite party is not the staff of the 4^th opposite party as alleged. He is simply a person to whom the 4^th opposite party imparted training as a Rural Energy Technician. For completing the installation of the plant the 4^th opposite party provides as RET, to the applicants from their panel of RET. No such things has happened in this matter. The 4^th opposite party is totally ignorant about the Nadathara Rural Development Society. The society has never been affiliated to the 4^th opposite party as alleged. Only the persons who submit their applications as per the rules laid out are eligible for getting the prescribed subsidy amount. The 4^th opposite party has neither received any amount from the complainant nor has provided any service. These facts were made clear in the reply letters issued by 4^th opposite party to the complainant. The complainant has never made any application as required under the rules before the 4^th opposite party to get any services. The allegation of 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are affiliated to 4^th opposite party is totally denied. The 4^th opposite party is very careful while awarding subsidy only to eligible applicants who apply in a proper manner are given the subsidy. All other allegations of the complainant are denied by 4^th opposite party. Hence 4^th opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

1^st and 2^nd opposite parties absent and set exparte. Complainant filed application to delete 3^rd opposite party stated that 3^rd opposite party is the agent of 2^nd opposite party and no separate relief prayed against them. Application allowed and 3^rd opposite party deleted from the party array.

Complainant and 4^th opposite party filed their affidavit. Ext. A1 to Ext.A6 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 to Ext.B5 except B4 marked on the side of 4^th opposite party. Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are;

1) Whether complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act? 2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3) If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issue No.I

We perused relevant documents on record. As per Ext.A6, the details of the installation of the Biogas implemented in Kattukulam area from 2010-2013 issued by 4^th opposite party shown that 2^nd opposite party is the Rural Energy Technician. More over in Ext.B2 the letter issued by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission dated 7/12/2012 stated that 2^nd opposite party is the approved Rural Energy Technician working under Biogas scheme. According to the complainant the amount for constructing the Biogas plant given to 3^rd opposite party. Also stated that 3^rd opposite party is the agent and contractor of 2^nd opposite party. After receiving the notice 2^nd opposite party was absent and hence set exparte. So the allegations of the complainant is unchallenged. Admittedly 4^th opposite party has conducted the Biogas scheme and all the persons who wish to get a subsidy for installation of a Biogas plant must submit the application form to the rules of the Khadi Commission. The complainant stated that 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties had constructed the Biogas plant for an amount of Rs. 24,000/-. So the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence 1^st issue answered in favour of the complainant.

Issues 2 & 3

There was no dispute regarding the construction of Biogas plant. The main allegation of 4^th opposite party that they had not received any application from the complainant for installation of a Biogas plant through 2^nd opposite party. But the complainant stated that all papers signed and given to 2^nd opposite party. Thereafter the 2^nd opposite party demanded Rs. 1,000/- as additional payment and not paid that amount without a valid receipt by the complainant. So the 2^nd opposite party has not given the application form to 4^th opposite party. Moreover the complainant stated that the Biogas plant constructed in the month of January 2011 as KVIC MMG No.2010-2011/7. The 4^th opposite party has denied that Biogas plant was constructed by their direction.

As per Ext.A6 the neighbours of complainant included the details of the Biogas implemented from 2010-2013 under the supervision of 2^nd opposite party. During the pendency of the complaint 3^rd opposite party was deleted from the party array as per the application filed by the complainant. The work was completed by 3^rd opposite party as an agent of 2^nd opposite party and the Biogas plant is still working without any defects. The complainant is a senior citizen and believing the words of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, he had constructed the Biogas plant. The complainant stated that opposite parties had not given valid receipt for payments and he has not paid the additional amount of Rs. 1,000/-. It is an admitted fact that before disbursing the subsidy amount to the person who had applied for getting the subsidy a technical staff from the commission will inspect the unit and make sure that the unit has been properly installed after being informed about the completion of the work. According to 4^th opposite party for the supervision charge of an amount of Rs.1,500/- will be paid by the Commission to the RET who has been appointed to install the unit and complete the work. After receiving notice from the complainant the 4^th opposite party had not taken any steps to enquire about the construction of the Biogas plant of complainant. In Ext.B2 stating that " Sri. M.M. Georgekutty is the approved Rural Energy Technician working under our Biogas scheme. In their case he has denied your complaint against him saying that he has not constructed Biogas plant at your premises directly or through contractor Sri Rajendran". The 4^th opposite party has not produced evidence to show that they had conducted enquiry about the Biogas plant of complainant.

1^st opposite party has not filed version and affidavit. According to 4^th opposite party as per the rules the complainant has not submitted any application for installation of a Biogas plant to them through 2^nd opposite party and they had never appointed the 2^nd opposite party as RET and never paid any supervision charge to him. But 4^th opposite party admitted that 2^nd opposite party is the approved Rural Energy Technician working under Biogas scheme. The complainant deposed that 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties had not shown any identity card of 4^th opposite party. At the time of cross examination of 4^th opposite party deposed that not issued identity card to RET. The 4^th opposite party has not taken any steps to enquire about the allegation of complainant. According to the 4^th opposite party the application of the complainant was not given to them through 2^nd opposite party and he is not liable to get the subsidy amount. Moreover the complainant stated the number of Biogas plant constructed by the opposite parties. No contradictory evidence produced by opposite parties.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st ,2^nd and 4^th opposite parties. In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 8,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th day of July, 2013

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha. G. Nair

Member

Sd/- Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of letter dated 12/12/2011 sent by complainant to The Director, Khadi and Village Industries, Thiruvananathapuram.

Ext.A2 - Letter dated 19/1/2012 sent by The Assistant Director, Khadi & Village Industries Commission to 2^nd opposite party.

Ext.A3 - Copy of letter dated 17/9/2012 sent by the complainant to 4^th opposite party.

Ext.A4 – Copy of Lawyer notice sent by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party dated 18/8/2012.

Ext.A5 – Registered lawyer notice with acknowledgement card issued by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party.

Ext.A6- Details of installation of the Biogas implemented in Kattukulam area issued by the 4^th opposite party.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1 - Copy of letter dated 18/12/2012 issued by the Director, Khadi & Village Industries Commission TVM to the complainant.

Ext. B2 - Copy of reply letter dated 7/12/2012 sent by the 4^th opposite party to the complainant.

Ext.B3 - Copy of complaint letter sent by the complainant to the Chief Minister's Sudharya Keralam Programme.

Ext.B4 - Nil

Ext. B5- Statement submitted by the 4^th opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 - Balakrishnagupthan. P

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW1 – C.K. Mohandas

Cost allowed

Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.