SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.

            The complaint is filed for compensation and  for getting  direction to  the opp.parties to plough  the complainant’s land.

          The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

The opp.parties who were the President and Secretary of Karikkuzhi Pada Sekhara Nellulpadaka Samithy received advance Rs.450/-  and  entrusted a  driver namely Chandran to plough the land owned by the complainant’s son and cultivated by the complainant who is a farmer.  The tractor  sunk into mud because of the  in experience  of the driver.   As the complainant informed the matter, the opp.parties directed the driver to call workers  to lift  up the tractor and directed the  complainant to pay the charges.  Opp.parties assured that amount will be paid back afterwards.  The complainant paid Rs.800/- as labour charges.  But on repeated demands the opp.parties were not paid back that amount.

          The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.15,000/-  because of the reason that he could not cultivate the said land in that season.   The opp.parties not ploughed the land as per the conditions.

          Opp.parties 1 and 2  were continuously  working as the President and Secretary of the said Smithi without conducting annual general body meeting  and without including new members.

          Complainant had sufficient loss of  Rs.450/- as advance amount Rs.800/- as lifting charges and Rs. 15,000/- as the land was not cultivated.     Hence the complaint is filed for getting relief.

          The opp.parties filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is only experimental.

          Para 1 of the complaint is denied.  Para 2 is accepted.   The Samithi is working for the benefit of its  members.  Para III is denied.  Tractor is using to plough  the land of members of the saimithi . Receipt will be issued for payment as the hire charges.   The tractor was not given to the complaint to plough the land .  No advance was received.  Para 4 is denied.  The complainant is not a permanently cultivating the land.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.   The said samithi periodically conducting Board meetings and Annual General Body Meeting and approving annual income  and expenditure  accounts, submitting  the names of elected members and audited accounts before  Dist. Registrar and functioning peroperly.  Para 5 is denied.   The complainant is imaginary and to harras opp.parties.  Para 6 is denied.   Adv. Notice dated 7.7.2006 was sent by he complainant claiming Rs.6250/-  as compensation.  On receipt of that notice opp.parties sent reply notice on 11.8.2006 and it was received by the counsel of the complainant.   Claim of Compensation Rs.16250/- is totally baseless.  Para 7 is denied.   Complainant has organized a new samithi in the same name of the old samithi and  complainant is  lodged with a view to defame opp.parties.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.

          The complainant filed affidavit  PW.1 examined.   Exts. P1 to P3 series and D1 to D3 were marked.  PW.1 recalled and examined as per order in I.A.176/08 filed by the complainant dated 9.7.2008 Ext.P4 and D1[a] and D4 marked.   Copy of Memorandum of Association marked as Ext. P5, PW.2 and 3 were examined.

          Based on the contentions the points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party

2.     Compensation and costs.

3.     For the complainant PW.1 to 3 were examined.   Ext. P1 to P4 were marked.

4.     No oral evidence from the side of opp.party..  Ext. D1. to D4 were marked through PW.1.

Points 1 and 2

          The  opp.party contended that  the complainant never availed the Service of opp.party.   The opp.party never given the tractor for ploughing the land or  received Rs.450/-   The complainant in his complaint stated that opp.parties were not giving any receipt or other documents for ploughing the agricultural land and functioning the society improperly .  On a  perusal of the documents  we could not find any evidence to show that the complainant has availed the Service of opp.parties

          For evidence PW.1 to 3 were examined.  In the III para of Ext.P1  advocate notice it is stated that TYedlgA  Ymld\MG  rjhf\fjH flq\r\r ijigA Ymld\MG ssY/iG rjb\bsx Lyjujv\vfrkcgjv\v\ Ymld\MG  rjhf\fjH rjr\rk KuGf\fjsumk]kr\rfjrk Swlhj]lsg ijxjv\vk KuGf\fj tmk]kilR     rjb\bX rjGp\SpCjv\vj}kxxfkA LYedlgA KuGf\fjsumk]kr\rfjrk igkr\r svhi\ sdlmk]kilR rjb\bxjH Qr\rlA dd\,julu svh\he\eRejxx tsRy d,jSulm\ LliCUe\semkdukA  ejrrjmk\ rjb\bX tsrY d,j]\ fkd fjgjsd rHdjsdlxxlsar\rk eyB\Bk ijCIlcje\ejv\vjgkr\rfkaln\h\Shl  In the complaint para 3 it is stated that

     TYedlgA Ymld\MG rjhf\fjH fln ijigA Ymld\MG ssY/iykA <Gw\wjdd\,jukA tfjG dd\,jdsxLyjujv\v   In his deposition PW.2 has stated that  Ymld\MG Lijsm ekfB\Bjgj]kdulujgkr\rk.  dg]kduMlR Sin\mj Ymld\MG Kmadxlu elmSCDgcajfjukA BlrkA  tsRy ck<{f\fk]xkaluj PlgnKn\mluj;  800&% goel Bb\bX]k\ rHdlsar\r ilz\plrf\fjH Bb\bX il<rA dgu\]k duMjsdlmkf\fk;  Ymld\MG  duMj dqjB\Be\SelX enAfglsf elmSCDgcajfj scYd}yj svh\he\eRejxx c\FhA ij}k These statements shows that  there is  inconsistency  in the advocate notice and the complaint.  The deposition of PW.2 makes  it  clear that there is no agreement in  writing or oral that the opp.parties directed  the complainant to give  money to the loadingworkers.  Even if there is an oral agreement it was between  the opp.parties and PW.2. 

          PW.2 further stated that opp.parties  sRy Kmac\FfujH Kxx Ymld\MG Llnk\ rjhf\fjH flq\r\rfk\ tr\rk trj]keyulR dqjukA   Ll Ymld\MyjsRy gwj;rAeG trj]yjujh\h  Counsel  for opp.party put a question that parties’sRy Kmac\Ffujhkxx Ymld\MG complainant rk\  ij}ksdlmkf\fjS}ujh\h tr\rkeyukr\rk? [a] Cgjuh\h;  il<rf\fjsRy ssY/iG Llujgkr\r  vr\YpR Lb\bsrulnk\ eyB\Bf\

     PW.2 has got the knowledge that the tractor is owned by opp.parties from the words of  the said  Chandran.  It is only  here say   Chandran was not examined as a witness.

          Ext. P1  is the office copy of Adv. Notice issued by the complainant’s Advocate.   This document was challenged by the opp.party.  Opp.party presented the original of the Adv. Notice which was   marked as D1.   We have perused the document.  It is seen that in Ext. D1it is stated that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.6250/- including Rs.800/- which was given as labour  charges Rs.450/- as the rent of tractor and Rs.5000/-  as he was unable to cultivate the Land.  But in Ext.P1 it is stated that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.16,250/- including Rs.800/- as labour charges 450/- as rent of tractor and Rs.15000/- because of non cultivation.  On   a detailed verification of P1 and D1 we find that Ext.P1 is a fabricated document.

          The complainants claims that he had suffered a loss of Rs.15,000/- because he could not cultivate the land in that season.  The arguement cannot be  sustained because he has got a chance to plough his land with another tractor.   Tractors are available for rent.  In the complaint it is stated that he could not  cultivate the land in that season.  But the document submitted by the complainant which was issued by the Agricultural Officer it is stated he has received financial  assistance granted  by the Government.  How the complaint can receive financial assistance as production.  Bonus without doing cultivation?  The document shows that the  complainant had received benefits continuously from the year 2003-04  to 2008-09.,

          The learned counsel for opp.party argued that the actual facts leading to the case is that there was some  rival aries  between the complainant and  opp.parties.   The society in which the opp.parties  are President and Secretary was functioning from 1990 onwards.  The complainant  and some other persons registered a new society in the above name and including the same area.    The opp.parties lodged complaint against complainant and others before the authorities .   Even though the complainant deposed that he was not in terms with  the opp.parties in the above circumstances inimical   that they were on some enemical term.   The allegation  in the complaint about  the functioning of the opp.party society also reflects the   attitude .  The complainant in his deposition stated that he had  lodged 4-5 petitions against opp.party society.

          PW.3 is a former member of Grama Panchayat  of Mayyanad Mr. Radhakrishnan and the former  Secretary of the opp.party society.   The learned counsel for opp.party put the question that .lgil<jfIA QqjB\Be\SelX SgDdX ssdalyjujgkr\Srl witness answered Th\h complainant    aluj SvGr\rk mj SegjHfr\sraSMlgk elmSCDgcajfj gwjc\MG svu\fj}kn\mk PW.3 also raises  some allegation in his deposition about  the functioning of the opp.party society.  This deposition reveals that   PW.3 also is in some enemical  terms with the opp.parties.  Hence the  evidences given by PW.3  is not believable.  PW.2 and PW.3 were stated that the deposition was given in favour of and in need of the complainant.

          Considering all the facts,  evidence and circumstances we are of the opinion that the complaint is baseless and made with false allegations intentionally with a view  to defame the opp.parties.  We find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties.  The points  found accordingly.

In the result the complaint is dismissed with compensatory cost Rs.1500/-

            Dated this the   31^st       day of March, 2009.

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Chellappan

PW.2. –K. Krishna Kumar

PW.3. – C. Radhakrishnan

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Advocate notice

P2. – Postal receipt

P3. – Acknowledgement cards

P4. –Notice

List of witnesses for the opp.parties: NIL

List of documents for the opp.parties

D1. – Notice

D2. – Advocate notice

D3. – Registration certificate

D4. – Acknowledgement card