Karnataka

Kolar

CC/11/2018

K.A.Hanumantharayappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.Anand Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

GSR

17 Jan 2019

ORDER

Date of Filing: 15/02/2018

Date of Order: 17/01/2019

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 17^th DAY OF JANUARY 2019

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 11 OF 2018

K.A. Hanumantharayappa,

S/o. Late K.S. Anjappa,

Kempadenahalli Village,

Ambajidurga Hobli,

Chintamani Taluk,

Chikkaballapura District.                                            ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. Srinivas.G, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) M. Anand Kumar, Proprietor,

Mahalakshmi Hardware & Electricals

(Authorized Dealer Of Netafim Irrigation

(I) Private Limited), Opp. Public Library,

B.B. Road, Chickballapura-562101.

(Exparte)

 

2) The Manager,

Netafim Irrigation (I) Private Limited,

#1356-1358, 6^th Main Road,

West of Chord Road, 2^nd Stage, Nagapur,

Bangalore-86.

(Rep. by Sri. N.L. Srinivasa Prasad, Advocate)

 

3) Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture,

/Assistant Director of Horticulture,

Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.

(In-person)

 

4) The Deputy Director Of Horticulture,

(ZP), Chikkaballapura District.

(In-person)                                                                           …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant is having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) against the opposite parties for issuance of directions to OP Nos.1 & 2 to pay altogether a compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, as per the work order dated: 03.11.2016 issued by Deputy Director of Horticulture (ZP) he had purchased drip irrigation equipments worth of Rs.1,19,614/- on 20.11.2016 from OP No.1 and since OP No.1 is the dealer of Netafim irrigation India private limited and staff of OP No.1 had installed drip irrigation systems at his land bearing Sy. No.37/P22 to an extent of 02 acers situated at Ambajidurga Hobli, Kempadenahalli Village, Chickaballapura District, to grow chrysanthemum flowers.

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, after installment he has submitted all necessary documents and applied for claim of subsidy to horticulture director (ZP), Chintamani Taluk, Chickaballapura District, since he has to get 95% of subsidy.  Accordingly on 23.03.2017 the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture (ZP, Chinthamani had visited the spot and after inspection they reported as OP No.1 had installed Nagarjuna and evergreen companies laterals instead of Netafim irrigation India Private Limited as per the invoice given by the OP No.1.  So he did not get the subsidy because of OP No.1 fault.  By installing unworthy equipment OP Nos.1 & 2 are rendered deficiency in service.  It is further contended that, he had spent for the said crop as below:-

 

d«ÄãÀÄ G¼Àî®Ä DzÀ ªÉZÀÑ (3 ¨Áj)	18,000/-
UÉƧâgÀzÀ ªÉZÀÑ (PÉÆnÖUÉ UÉƧâgÀ 10 ¯ÉÃqï MªÉÄä) (rJ¦, 19:19:19 vÀ¯Á 8 ªÀÄÆmÉAiÀÄAvÉ wAUÀ½UÉƪÉÄä)	73,000/-
¥É¹Ö¸ÉÊqïì ªÉZÀÑ (£ÉÆêÁ£ï 2 °Ã.)(¥Àæw wAUÀ½UÉ 3 ¸À®zÀAvÉ 3 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ)	30,000/-
¥É¹Ö¸ÉÊqïì ¹A¥Àr¸À®Ä D¼ÀÄUÀ½UÉ DzÀ ªÉZÀÑ	5,400/-
¸Á®Ä ºÁPÀ®Ä DzÀ ªÉZÀÑ	3,000/-
E¤ßvÀgÉ RZÀÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ	50,000/-
ºÀÆ £ÁgÀÄ ªÉZÀÑ (24,000 £ÁgÀÄ)	28,800/-
£ÁnUÉ D¼ÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉZÀÑ	25,000/-
PÀrØ ªÉZÀÑ (3500 PÀrØ)	35,000/-
PÀrØ £Ál®Ä D¼ÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉZÀÑ	9,000/-
PÀA© ªÉZÀÑ (10 Q¯ÉÆÃ)	1,800/-
PÀA© PÀlÖ®Ä D¼ÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉZÀÑ	3,000/-
PÀ¼É QüÀ®Ä D¼ÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉZÀÑ (¥Àæw wAUÀ½UÉ 2 ¸À®)	1,08,000/-
ræ¥ï ¥ÀjPÀgÀUÀ¼À ªÉZÀÑ	1,19,614/-
MlÄÖ ªÉZÀÑ	5,23,114/-

 

Because of OP Nos.1 & 2 he had lost all his crop worth of Rs.5,23,114/-.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   In response to the issuance of notice by this Forum, OP No.2 has put its appearance through its learned counsel and submitted its written version.  OP Nos.3 & 4 appeared through its representative as in-person and have not submitted any version or affidavit.  On perusal of the order-sheet, OP No.1 has placed exparte.

 

04.   OP No.2 in its version has denied the entire pleadings of complaint in toto and specifically contended that, the products supplied by the OP No.1 were not the products of the OP No.2, OP No.1 is not the authorized dealer of OP No.2 on the date of order i.e., 03.11.2016, hence the allegations against OP NO.2 pleaded and failure of companies produces does not arise and does not create any obligation on the part of OP No.2 and the responsibilities as to products since the once supplied to complainant were not the products of OP No.2 hence OP No.2 is not responsible and the complainant has no right to claim any indemnification and damages from OP No.2 so prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

05.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and submitted the below mentioned documents:-

(i) Copy of Legal notice dated: 06.10.2017

(ii) Copy of Delivery Challan issued by Mahalakshmi Hardware & Electricals, Chickballapura.

(iii) Copy of the Receipt No.217 issued by Mahalakshmi Hardware & Electricals

(iv) Copy of RTC extract pertaining to Sy. No.37/P22

(v) Copy of crop certificate

(vi) Letter dated: 23.03.2017 issued to Senior Director of Horticulture (ZP), Chintamani.

(vii) Copy of photograph

 

06.   Sri. Sharanabasava, Manager of OP No.2 has submitted his affidavit evidence and the below mentioned documents:-

(i) Copy of application for the year 2015-16 claiming subsidy on honey irrigation

(ii) Copy of Certificate pertaining to completion of work

(iii) Copy of Quotation by Mahalakshmi Hardware & Electricals

(iv) Copy of Cash/Credit Bill by Mahalakshmi Hardware & Electricals

(v) Copy of photograph

(vi) Circular dated: 03.09.2015 issued by Directorate of Horticulture.

(vii) Approval list of companies

(viii) Copy of PMKSY guidelines

(ix) Copy of photograph pertaining to computer generated sheet.

 

07.   The complainant and OP No.2 have submitted their respective written arguments and also heard oral arguments too.

 

08.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

(1) Whether the complainant has established that, OP Nos.1 & 2 had assured him to install Netafim equipments drip irrigation and does they have installed Nagarjuna and Evergreen equipments in his said land?

 

(2) If so, is there deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

 

(3) If so, whether the complainant has entitled for the claim as he sought?

 

(4) What order?

 

09.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1) to (3):-     In the Negative

POINT (4):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) to (3):-

10.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

(a)    The contention of complainant is that, as per the invoice given by OP Nos.1 & 2 has assured to install Netafim Irrigation Equipments in his land bearing Sy. No.37/P22 to an extent of 2 acers to grow chrysanthemum flowers at Kempadenahalli Village.  But as per the report given by Horticulture Department on 23.03.2017 OP No.1 had installed Nagarjuna and Evergreen equipments instead of Netafim equipments.  Thus he did not get his subsidy for it. 

 

(b)    Contrary to this OP No.2 had specifically contended that, this OP No.1 is not at all a dealer of OP No.2 since 03.11.2016.

 

(c)    On perusal of entire documents submitted by the complainant as well as OP No.2 it is crystal clear that, no document will reveals as OP Nos.1 & 2 have assured this complainant to install Netafim irrigation equipments firstly and no document is on record pertaining to Horticulture Department dated: 23.03.2017 to believe that, these OPs have installed Nagarjuna and Evergreen laterals in his land of complainant.  Therefore we opine that, the complainant has failed to prove his allegation as contended by him simply because of oral submission without any documentary evidence we cannot take adverse inference. 

 

(d)    On perusal of the documents submitted by OP No.2 i.e., the letter dated: 13.11.2017 written to Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District by Netafim Company reveals that, M/s. Mahalakshmi Hardware Electricals i.e., OP No.1 has discontinued his business with OP No.2 since May-2016 and since then they have not supplied any of the drip irrigation systems to OP No.1.  And for the current year they have not included his name under their authorized dealer list also.  Even on perusal of another document i.e., dealer list of Netafim does not contain this OP No.1 name.  Therefore it is clear that, OP No.2 had not supplied their produces to OP No.1 at all.  Hence we come to conclusion that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and the complainant has failed to prove his allegations against OP Nos.1, 3 and 4 hence we opined that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 

 

POINT (4):-

11.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) to (3) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainant is Dismissed with no order as to costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 17^th DAY OF JANUARY 2019)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT