Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas, Member.

Petitioner's case is as follows:

Petitioner is a farmer. He purchased tapping materials from the opposite party on 23.5.05 as per bills bearing numbers 9758, 9800. Total cost of the said materials was Rs.1656.50/-. Using the abovesaid tapping materials the petitioner conducted tapping for some weeks. The petitioner alleged that due to the inferior quality of the tapping materials he could not tap the rubber and sustained huge financial loss. Hence petitioner filed this petition for getting Rs.28250/- as compensation.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that a registered notice was issued to them after three months of the said purchase. The opposite party further contended that shading and tapping materials are used only during the rainy

-2-

season. The opposite party alleged that the petitioner filed this petition after using the tapping materials and taking benefit of rubber tapping for three months. Hence the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs of opposite party.

Points for determination:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade

    

   practice on the part of opposite parties.

2. Reliefs and costs.

Evidence consists of affidavits filed by the petitioner and opposite party and exhibits A1 to A3.

Point No.1.

The petitioner purchased tapping materials from the opposite party for Rs.1656.50/- on 23,5,08 as per bill Nos. 9758, 9800. These bills are produced and marked as exhibit A1 to A1(a). The opposite party's counsel argued that the very purpose of using tapping materials is to conduct rubber tapping during the rainy season. According to the opposite party the petitioner used the purchased items for three months and sent a registered notice only on 30.8.2005. The notice is marked as exhibit A2. The opposite party admits in their affidavit that he received the abovesaid notice on 31.8.2005. It is significant to note that no reply was issued by the opposite party to the above notice, exhibit A2. Whatever be the answer, whether it is positive or negative the opposite party is having a bounden duty to give explanation regarding a complaint raised by the consumer. Therefore it has to be held that ignoring a consumer's complaint amounts to deficiency in service. The petitioner alleged that he sustained huge financial loss due to the

-3-

interruption happened in the rubber tapping. But there is no evidence placed on record to prove the number of rubber trees or the rubber yield. Anyway on consideration of documents, we are of the view that ignorance shown towards a consumer's grievances is a deficiency in service. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2.

In view of the findings in point No.1 the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is ordered to give Rs.1500/- to the petitioner as cost and compensation.

This order will be complied with within 30 days of receipt of

this order.