BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1043/2006 against C.D. 202/2005, Dist. Forum, Guntur.
Between:
1). M/s. E.P.C. Industries Ltd.
P.B. No. 3-7-230,
Vikrampuri, Secunderabad.
2). M/s. E.P.C. Industries Ltd.
D.No. 19-8-57,
BDCMS Ware House No. 11
Etukuru Road, Guntur. *** Appellants/
O.Ps 1&2
And
1. Paleti Koteswara Rao
S/o. Venkata Rao
R/o. Mandadam village
Tullur Mandal
Guntur Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Asst. Director of Horticulture
Near Medical College,
Kannavari Thota,
Chandramouli Building
Guntur Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
3. The Project Director
Dist. Water Management Agency
DWMA, Guntur. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 4
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. D. Krishna Murthiy
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A. Rajendra Babu (R1)
R2 & R3 served.
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
MONDAY, THIS THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND NINE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) Opposite Parties 1 & 2 aggrieved by the order of the Dist. Forum in directing to refund Rs. 10,184/- together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs, preferred this appeal.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that the appellants M/s. EPC Industries Ltd., a supplier of drip irrigation system approached him for its installation for raising commercial crops like turmeric, plantain and tobacco in his fields situated at Mandadam village. He agreed for its installation in 1.40 hectors of his land for raising banana crop. Accordingly, he approached State Bank of India for the purpose of loan. The bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 51,842/- for installation of drip irrigation system and disbursed Rs. 10,184/- to the appellants on 25.11.2004. However, the appellants did not install the drip irrigation system. On their promise that they would install the system within a week, he planted banana seedlings in 1.40 hectors of his land by spending Rs. 56,000/-. Though he was continuously requesting them to provide drip irrigation system they did not do so, due to which he has sustained loss to a tune of Rs. 1 lakh per acre, in all Rs. 3,50,000/-. He got issued legal notice for which the appellants did not reply but R3 gave reply stating that drip irrigation system has been installed to the farmers’ gardens with 50%subsidy and R4 was the overall controlling authority for implementation of the project. R4 was authorized to take action and requested him to approach him. Since he had sustained loss of Rs. 3.50 lakhs he claimed the said amount from the opposite parties with interest and costs.
3) The appellant resisted the case. While denying the relationship between them as consumer and trader the complainant was put to strict proof that it agreed to supply the drip irrigation system, and that he had raised the banana crop on its representation, and that there was no yield due to non-installation of drip irrigation system and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A9 marked, while the opposite parties did not file any documents.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record directed the appellants to refund Rs. 10,184/- with interest @ 12% p.a., together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not consider the very fact that there was no privity of contract between them. It did not receive the amount for supply of drip irrigation system. There was no harvesting of crop. No complaint was even made to R4 the Project Director, District Water Management Agency, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and consequently dismiss the complaint.
7) The complainant alleges that at the instance of appellants he approached State Bank of India for purchase of drip irrigation system, and that bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 51,842/- for the said purpose and disbursed Rs. 10,184/- to R1 and R2 towards first instalment on his behalf. He alleges that despite receipt of amount the appellants did not install the said system due to which the banana crop raised by him had failed, and consequently sustained loss to a tune of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The appellants disputes the said fact. In order to prove the said fact the complainant filed Ex. A1 certificate issued by State Bank of India. What all mentioned in Ex. A1 was that an amount of Rs. 51,842/- was sanctioned, and an amount of Rs. 10,184/- has been disbursed as first instalment in favour of appellants. When the installation was not made the complainant addressed a letter to the Asst. Director, Horticulture (R3) who in turn gave reply in Ex. A6 stating that drip irrigation system would be installed in the farmers garden with 50% subsidy under A.P. Micro Irrigation Project. He directed him to approach R4 the Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Guntur who was in-charge. Except these two documents there is no proof that the appellant had agreed to supply the drip irrigation system to the complainant.
8) The complainant could not prove that when the bank had disbursed the fist instalment amount to the appellants it had to install the drip irrigation system to the agriculturists. It is not the case of the complainant even that the entire amount had been paid. There is no proof that the Government has released 50% subsidy in order to supply the system to the complainant. Simply because the bank has disbursed the first instalment to the appellant assuming that the appellant had withdrawn that amount, there is no proof that it has to install the drip irrigation system to the complainant. When the complainant could not prove that the entire amount was received by the appellant, he cannot ask for installation of drip irrigation system. More so, when hardly any amount was paid to the appellants. At any rate there is no privity of contract between the appellant company and the complainant. Assuming that on the understanding that the appellants would install the system, he raised the banana crop, there is no proof that there was loss of banana crop due to non-supply of drip irrigation system. Even the Panchayat Secretary, Mandadam in his report Ex. A7 mentioned that there was loss of crop ‘because of plantation of low yielding variety’ the same was struck off and written ‘lack of drip irrigation system’. The complainant did not file the affidavit evidence of Panchayat Secretary who said to have issued the said certificate. If any loss was occasioned to the complainant it cannot be attributed to the appellants. The Dist. Forum solely on the premise that the bank has released the amount towards first instalment concluded that the appellants had to install the system, and since such system was not installed the complainant had sustained loss without any proof of any of these facts.
9) Importantly there is no proof that the company has to install the system the moment it receives first instalment. In fact there is no evidence that the company has encashed the amount of first instalment disbursed by the bank. When there is no proof whatsoever directing the appellants to refund Rs. 10,184/- would not arise, more so to the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant even that the bank has demanded the amount from him on the ground that it has disbursed the amount to the appellants, and consequently he was liable to pay the same. Absolutely this is a case of total lack of evidence. The order of the Dist. Forum does not sustain on any of the grounds.
10) In the result the appeal is allowed. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. However, no costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
Dt. 09. 03. 2009.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
