Tamil Nadu

Thiruvallur

CC/169/2022

M.E.Jaganathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Chandru Stores - Opp.Party(s)

A.Vishnuvendhan-C

28 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
THIRUVALLUR
No.1-D, C.V.NAIDU SALAI, 1st CROSS STREET,
THIRUVALLUR-602 001
 
Complaint Case No. CC/169/2022
( Date of Filing : 29 Sep 2022 )
 
1. M.E.Jaganathan
S/o Elumalai, No.85/1, Vinayagar Kovil St., Koppur Village, Thiruvallur Tk & Dist.
Tiruvallur
TAMIL NADU
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Chandru Stores
M/s Chandru Stores, (Fertilizer & Pesticide & Seeds), No.210/4, C.V.Naidu Salai, Thiruvallur - 602001.
Tiruvallur
TAMIL NADU
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  TMT.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L.,Ph.D(Law) PRESIDENT
  THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L., MEMBER
  THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, ICWA (Inter), B.L., MEMBER
 
PRESENT:A.Vishnuvendhan-C, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 J.Babu-OP, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 28 Apr 2023
Final Order / Judgement
                                                                                                 Date of Filing      : 19.09.2022
                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 28.04.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                  .…. PRESIDENT
                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L.,                                                      .....MEMBER -I
                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,.MCom., ICWA(Inter)., B.L.,                                    ....MEMBER-II
 
CC. No.169/2022
THIS FRIDAY, THE 28th DAY OF APRIL 2023
Mr.M.E.Jaganathan,
S/o.Elumalai,
No.85/1, Vinayagar Kovil Street,
Koppur Village,
Thiruvallur Taluk & District.                                                              .......Complainant.
 
                                                                          //Vs//
Mr.S.Chandru,
M/s.Chandru Stores,
(Fertilizer & Pesticide & Seeds),
No.210/4, C.V. Naidu Salai,
Thiruvallur – 602 001.                                                                        ...Opposite party.
 
Counsel for the complainant                                            :  Mr.M.Staleen, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party                                        :  Mr.J.Babu, Advocate.
                        
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 28.04.2023 in the presenc of Mr.J.Babu counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in selling fertilizers  & seeds along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.17,86,430/- paid by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and torture suffered by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost of the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The present complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party stating that the opposite party had supplied fertilizers for the complainant’s farm to the value of Rs.3,40,500/-  but all the trees in the farm were destroyed due to the usage of the said fertilizers.  Thus claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of trees, Rs.2,58,500/- spent for purchase of the fertilizers, Rs.81,000/- spent for workers, Rs.25,000/- for putting fence and Rs.1,48,000/- spent on auction the present complaint was filed by the complainant for the reliefs mentioned above.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
The opposite party filed version denying the purchase of fertilizers quantity and price.  Further they also disputed the stage in which the fertilizer has to be used for the mango farm.  The non-joining of the fertilizer producer as a party to the proceeding is also stated by the opposite party as a ground for dismissal of the complaint.
After the written version was filed the matter was posted for filing proof affidavit of complainant on 29.11.2022.  However, no proof affidavit was filed inspite of sufficient opportunities  was given on 16.12.2022, 26.12.2022, 17.01.2023, 25.01.2023, 09.02.2023, 27.02.2023, 07.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 03.04.2023, 17.04.2023, 24.04.2023, 25.04.2023 and on 28.04.2023.  Though the opposite party was present, the complainant did not appear and did not file proof affidavit.  The matter was passed over and called twice on 28.04.2023 but no appearance made by complainant.  Hence, this commission is of the view that there is no purpose in keeping the complaint on file without the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. Complaint dismissed for default. No Cost.
 
   Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                    Sd/-
MEMBER-II                                            MEMBER-I                                     PRESIDENT
 
 
[ TMT.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L.,Ph.D(Law)]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L.,]
MEMBER
 
 
[ THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, ICWA (Inter), B.L.,]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.