BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 30^TH DAY OF MAY 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, claiming refund of rs.86,258/- with interest, the loss incurred on labor of Rs.1,80,000/- and compensation.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant is running a business in Bangalore, and also having farm at hullehal village, Chitradurga District, Karnataka, farming pomegranate at his field, one Mr. Chandranna is caretaker of his farm. Complainant in order to protect pomegranate crop from the weeds/wetness in his farm, he placed an order for mulching sheet from OP by paying sum of Rs.86,258/- as an advance through NEFT on 22.06.2022 vide UTR No.KARBN22173057342. As per the performa invoice issued by OP, supposed to supply the ordered materials by sending any surface transport on or before 10^th day from the date of NEFT payment, but in spite of repeated follow up through phone calls, whatsapp communication and even request sent through registered post, OP went on promising falsely. Later OP agreed to return the above mentioned amount but he did not refund it till now, subsequently Mr. V.K. Singh who is authorized signatory of OP has stopped picking the phone calls, which shows its intention of cheating. Hence this complaint.

3. Notice sent to OP, returned un-served with endorsement made in Gujarati. On the next date of hearing complainant himself confirmed the shara which is in Gujarati language as ‘unaccepted’. After going through the shara on returned postal envelope, OP called out but OP was absent on the date of appearance. Hence, OP placed exparte.

4. Complainant filed his affidavit evidence along with 6 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. Complainant reiterated in the affidavit evidence as he stated in the complaint. Heard arguments of the complainant, we perused the materials on record.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following points will do arise for our consideration are:-

 i) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of services on the part of OP?

ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?

iii) What order?

6. Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- In the affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

7. Point No.1&2:- These two points are inter-related to each other, for the sake of arguments and to avoid repetition we would like to discuss and answer Point No.1&2 together.

8. As complainant stated he placed an order for mulching sheet to protect pomegranate crop from the weeds and wetness and paid entire amount of Rs.86,258/- through NEFT on 22.06.2022 to OP which is at Ex.P.5. OP has issued said invoice in favor of Mr.Chandranna who is caretaker of complainant farm. Through the said document Ex.P.1, it discloses that complainant has purchased 425 Kg’s of mulching sheet which costs Rs.172 per Kg. In total complainant has paid Rs.86,258/- including GST. Complainant also produced the accounts statement of Karnataka Bank to prove the payment has made to OP on the stated date. As he stated in the complaint, complainant has issued notice to Mr. V.K. Singh of OP Company on 31.08.2022 asking him to supply the goods as he placed an order or to refund the paid amount, which is at Ex.P.2. The notice has duly served on OP, which are on Ex.P.3. Even after the receipt of notice OP did not come forward to comply the claim of complainant. Complainant has also produced telephone conversation and the messages between him and OP, which are at Ex.P.4. It reveals that complainant has exhausted all the avenue’s to get relief, in order to delivery the goods or refund of amount but OP has not supported to the claim of the complainant.

9. After going through the documents placed before this commission, complainant has made an effort before OP to get back the product and also he has given an option to refund otherwise. Even in Ex.P.1 OP has stated that the payment has to be made 100% in advance before release of materials from factory and also stated that the said performa has a validity of 10 days. Coming to terms and conditions of OP, supposed to delivery product within month of June, but he did not deliver it as assured. Hence he violated his own terms and conditions and retained a huge amount of Rs.86,258/- since June 2022, is not fair. Either he could supply the product as assured if in case he is not able to supply, he could refund the amount before he seeks refund. Hence in our view OP caused deficiency of services and has to compensate to complainant. OP has not appeared and contested the matter. Hence the evidence placed by complainant are unchallenged. Complainant stated in the complaint that he availed services of labors to weeding work, to maintain form and crop for good yield. Complainant incurred money for labor work, though he paid Rs.86,258/- to OP for the same purpose. Hence, it amounts to financial loss to complainant for the fault of OP. Hence, OP has to compensate him.

10. Since complainant has paid Rs.86,258/- through NEFT is entitled to get refund of entire amount, he is entitled to get refund. Complainant has also stated that due to non-supply of mulching sheet, complainant has incurred cost of manual weeding with the help of labors by spending Rs.1,80,000/-. Hence he sought the refund of the cost incurred on it. When the purpose of mulching sheet, it was bonafide responsibility of OP to provide the same to protect the crop from the weeds and wetness. OP has not supplied well within the time to avoid weeding for the growth of pomegranate crop. Hence obiviously complainant has incurred manual workers to get rid of weeds but the claim of the complainant for sum of Rs.1,80,000/- for labor work he availed, seems to be exorbitant. Hence in our considered view, the labor cost for manual weeding for Rs.30,000/- in the ends of justice. Complainant is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. For the foregoing reasons we answer Point No.1&2 accordingly.

11. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. Complaint filed U/S 35, is partly allowed.

2. OP is directed to repay Rs.86,258/- to the complainant with interest on the rate of 10% per annum from the date of payment till realization.

3. OP is further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and towards labor cost to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OP shall pay interest at the rate of 10% on Award amount from date of order till realization.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 30^th day of MAY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;