D.O.F:26/10/2021
D.O.O:20/09/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.185/2021
Dated this, the 20th day of September 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Chakrapani Nambiar, aged 79 years,
S/o V. Kunhambu Nair,
Manimoola Post, Kasaragod : Complainant
(Adv: K.M Ballakuraya)
And
M.A. James, aged about 45 years,
S/o Abraham Malambil
Malambil (House)
Karnataka Cashew Nut – Nursery
Panathur, 671532. :Opposite party
(Adv: P. Narayanan)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The brief facts of the case is that the Opposite Party approached complainant and introduced himself as the owner of ‘Karnataka Cashew Nut Nursery’. The opposite Party told that he is having areca plants of a variety called ‘Shatamangla’ and claimed that it is the best variety and assured that it gives good yield and that it is not prone to any disease. Opposite party demanded Rs. 80/- per plants believing the words of opposite party complainant ordered 200 plants of Shatamangala. The Complainant paid Rs. 16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand only) as its price to Opposite party and opposite party brought and kept 200 areca plants and kept in the courtyard of the complainant.
On enquiry complainant came to know that Shatamangala variety is a new areca plant invented by CPCRI and it is available only at Research station Vittala and it is released only in the year 2016. It was also learned that not more than 50 plants were sold per agriculturist at the rate of Rs. 30/- per plant and it sold only through booking. The Shatamangala variety is not available at open market. The plant introduced in the year 2016 mother plant can set ready within only after 12 years.
The complainant contacted opposite party regarding the issue Opposite Party replied that the areca plant supplied by him are of ‘Kodi Naru’ from Gujarath. The complainant never ready to buy Kodinaru variety. The complainant demanded to refund the amount paid by him. But Opposite Party rejected the demand.
The act of opposite party is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss for which claiming refund of Rs. 16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand only) with interest and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and cost of litigation.
The opposite Party Adv. P Narayanan filed vakalath and version. The opposite Party denied the averments in the complaint. Further states that opposite party never approached the complainant to sell Shatamangala arecanut plants and not induced him to purchase the plants. The opposite Party denied that he is the owner of Karnataka cashew Nut Nursary. The opposite party supplying different types of plants in areca plant as per order. The complainant ordered some arecanut plants to the manufacturer through the Opposite party and he supplied it. The opposite party denied the allegation that he received the amount from complainant. The opposite party never received any lawyer notice. There is no deficiency in service as unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Pw1. Ext A1 to A5 document marked from his side. The opposite party filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Dw1.
Following points arised for consideration in the case:-
- Whether opposite party supplied areca plants lower in quality though agreed to supply Shatmanagala areca plants, thereby deficiency in service by Opposite party?
- Whether complainant is entitled for refund of price of areca plants paid by him? Whether complainant is entitled for compensation?
Both points are considered together for convenience:-
The complainant has got a specific case right from the beginning that opposite party told the complainant that he is having areca plants of variety called Shatmangala having good quality, good yield thereby claimed Rs. 80/- per plant where as ordinary areca plants cost only Rs. 30/-.
Ext A1 is the ledger account extract showing credit of Rs. 15,000/- to the credit of Opposite party account on 23/07/2021, Ext A2 is the order from issued by opposite party, Ext A3 is the copy of lawyer notice, Ext A4 is the Acknowledgment card, Ext A5 is the returned post cover with endorsement unclaimed.
In the written version by Opposite party in para 4 shows “Complainant ordered” some arecanut plant to the manufacturer through opposite party and he supplied it.
So according to Opposite party specification of plants is not ordered. But Opposite party did not deny receipt of amount at Rs. 80/ per plants where as ordinary plants costs very less than that.
While Opposite party was examined he admitted having received Rs. 16,000/- and supplied 200 areca plants.
In evidence his further case is that complainant removed/ or taken away. 200 Shatamangala plants but it is not stated so in his written version.
It is pertinent to note that Opposite party has no consistent/definite case pleading and evidence are quite different. Regarding document he says it contains his phone number give by opposite party says that complainant taken away some arecanut plant but not sold by him to complainant.
From the document produced evidence adduced, pleading of the parties it is proved that opposite party supplied 200 areca plants collected Rs. 16,000/- but not supplied Shatmangala on enquiry Opposite party clearly stated that he supplied ‘KodiNaru’. It is clearly deficiency in service and unfair trade practice supplying different brand of areca plants for which price is low.
But still complainant has no case that he did not plant the plants, may be started yielding. In any event, Opposite party did not deny price difference of Rs. 50/- plant for ordinary plants and Shatmangala.
Therefore complainant is not entitled to full refund of money paid by him. But complainant is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- being difference of price of Rs. 50/- per plant for 200 plants with interest. Supplying of different variety of plants instead of the agreed is clear unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for which complainant is entitled for compensation considering the nature and circumstances of the case an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded as compensation for deficiency in service and complainant is also entitled for cost of litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part Opposite party directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) being the difference in price of areca plant with 8% interest from date of payment 23/07/2021 till realization and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Customer account ledger report.
A2- Order form
A3- Copy of Lawyer notice
A4- Acknowledgment card
A5- Returned post cover with endorsement unclaimed.
Witness Examined
Pw1- Chandni.R. Nambiar
Dw1- M.A James
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
