This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the case in brief: The Complainant is a native of Wayanad district and he is an agriculturist by avocation. The Complainant had some land in Wayanad and he used to make agricultural operations on leased lands at Karnataka. He used to cultivate plantains, Ginger, Tapioca etc. Since the leased land in Karnataka State does not have sufficient water facility, the Complainant was thinking or arranging water facility by providing modern irrigation systems. While so, the authorized representative of the Opposite Party approached the Complainant and informed that the Opposite Party Company is producing and marketing modern irrigation systems on a moderate rate and he should arrange such facility to the Complainant’s land at Karnataka. Accordingly, the Complainant placed an order and paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in three instalments, i.e. on 19/11/2020, 20/11/2020 and on 21/11/2020 through his bank account in favour of the Opposite Party Company, by way of advance payment and the balance amount would be provided at the time of installation of the system. But after making the payment, the Opposite Party did not turn up or make arrangements to provide the system as agreed and assured by them in spite of repeated demands. Then the Complainant sent legal notice to the Opposite Party on 14/02/2022. On receiving the notice, the Opposite Party issued a reply through their counsel stating false and frivolous things. It is submitted that the Opposite Party has accepted the payment of Rs.6,00,000/- made by the Complainant. But they are making an evasive statement that they could not affect the supply of systems because of the ongoing litigation by the Complainant and Tojo Abraham and expressed that they are ready to repay the amount less Rs.70,000/- being the expenses incurred by them. This statement is false, since the dealings were made between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. Tojo Abraham is not at all a party in the dealings. In fact, the act on the part of the Opposite Party is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. It is further submitted that the Complainant has been put to heavy loss in the agriculture during the season due to non-availability of water facility. The Complainant had been awaiting the Opposite Party who assured to provide all irrigation facility at the earliest possible day and hence the Complainant could not make any other alternative facility. Because of the negligent act on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has been put to heavy loss. Hence, this Complaint.
3. Upon notice, the Opposite Party appeared and filed version as follows: The entire transaction narrated in the complaint is a commercial transaction. The Opposite Party has no contractual liability with the Complainant. The Opposite Party has not undertaken any service, supply of materials or irrigation facility to the Complainant. As per the narration of the complaint the entire transactions were done in Karnataka beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission. No dealings of transactions with regard to the subject matter of complaint were done in Wayanad district. It is submitted that one Tojo Abraham, proprietor, Kainadi Farms, Madhoor village Hangalahobli, Gundelpet taluk, Chamaraj Nagar District, Karnataka state had approached the Opposite Party during November 2020 for arranging irrigation facility in his farm. The experts from the Opposite Party’s firm visited his plantation during November 2020 and prepared an outline for the irrigation system and placed a quotation for Rs.25,35,014/- for the completion of entire works including materials. The quotation was accepted by said Tojo Abraham. This Opposite Party had requested Tojo Abraham to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards advance amount before commencing the work. As such a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-in three instalments of Rs.2,00,000/- each on 19/11/2020, 20/11/2020 and 21/11/2020 were credited to the account of this Opposite Party. Tojo Abraham had told the Opposite Party that a portion of the land of the firm had been let out to the Complainant on license basis for cultivation and there are financial dealings in between the Complainant and him but the irrigation system is being undertaken at the behest of Tojo Abraham only. The receipt of Rs.6,00,000/- was properly acknowledged and receipts were issued to Tojo Abraham. Tojo Abraham had confirmed in writing that Rs.6,00,000/- was paid on behalf of Kainady farms towards the contract signed by him with M/s. Jain Irrigation. But later on, Tojo Abraham informed the Opposite Party to pause the implementation of irrigation system for a short while since he has some dispute with the license holder in the property and cases are pending against the Complainant by him before Senior Civil Judge J.M.F.C Court, Gundlupet and High Court of Karnataka. Later on, the Opposite Party came to know that the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- committed by said Tojo Abraham was transferred from the account of the Complainant. It is reiterated here itself that the Opposite Party had no legal or contractual obligation towards the Complainant and had never requested the Complainant to transfer the amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. It is understood that the Complainant had transferred the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the Opposite Party as per the instruction of Tojo Abraham as part of financial dealings between them. The Opposite Party denies the statement in the complaint that the Opposite Party did not turn up or make arrangements to provide the system as agreed and assured by them in spite of repeated demands from the side of the Complainant. In fact the land belongs to said Tojo Abraham and he had specifically instructed the Opposite Party not to start installation of irrigation system unless he asks to proceed with it. The Complainant is only a license holder and he has no right to install the irrigation system in the land of Tojo Abraham without his permission. The Opposite Party is ready and willing to terminate the agreement with Tojo Abraham and pay back the amount after deducting Rs.70,000/- being the expense inquired by the Opposite Party for conducting survey and other preliminary activities in the land of Tojo Abraham in connection with the installation of irrigation system. The Opposite Party have received a specific direction from said Tojo Abraham not to refund the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the account of the Complainant. It is also learned that a civil suit is pending between said Tojo Abraham and Roy. K. J. Said Tojo Abrahm has informed the company that he is ready to go ahead with the agreement and to pay the balance amount once the issues with the Complainant are cleared. The Opposite Party is not in a position and to meddle in the dispute between Complainant and said Tojo Abraham. Since the civil suit is pending, the Opposite Party is not in a position to take a decision to whom the amount is to be refunded after deducting Rs.70,000/- being the expense incurred by the Opposite Party. The dispute with regard to Rs.6,00,000/- has to be settled between Complainant and Tojo Abraham. Without prejudice to the above conditions it is submitted that the Opposite Party is ready and willing to terminate the agreement between the Tojo Abraham and to pay the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- after deducting the amount of Rs.70,000/- as per the directions of a competent court of law. The Opposite Party is not in a position to decide to whom the amount is to be refunded. It is reiterated that the amount will be refunded after deducting the amount of Rs.70,000/- to the person entitled to the same as per the order of a competent court of law. Here, Tojo Abraham is a necessary party in this complaint. The complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary party. Jain irrigation is a reputed company having in the business of micro irrigation, manufacturing of irrigation materials and allied service for the past 32 years. The company has immense good will and reputation among the irrigation filed. The dispute between Complainant and Tojo Abraham and the pendency of civil suit between them in courts in Karnataka ought to have been disclosed in the complaint. So, the Opposite Party prays that the above complaint may be dismissed with cost.
4. The Complainant filed Proof Affidavit and was examined as PW1 on 23.06.2023 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3. On 25.07.2023, the Complainant was recalled and was further examined and one of the documents confronted to him in chief examination was marked as Ext. A4. The Regional Manager of Opposite Party filed proof affidavit and was examined as OPW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. B1 to B4. Ext B2 and B4 marked as subject to proof. The Opposite Party’s witness was examined as OPW2 and the documents were marked as Ext. B5 and B6.
5. The points for consideration are as follows:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite
Party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?
6. As per the Complainant’s case, it is very clear that there is no written agreement between parties in respect of the work to be carried out by the Opposite Party. The entire case of the Complainant is based on oral agreement. So under these circumstances, as the complainant has no document or any agreement of contract, it is very difficult to find out and come to a conclusion. So under these circumstances when there is no documentary evidence or agreement between the parties for the works entrusted to the Opposite Party, it is very difficult to come to a conclusion and give judgement that the Opposite party have committed deficiency in service. The Complainant failed to establish what deficiency in service done by the Opposite Party. In the absence of any document and proper evidence, this type of complaint which is based only on oral agreement is not maintainable. Civil court is the competent authority to pass decree of refund of money. It is the case of money suit seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 6,00,000/-, which is said to have been paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. The Complainant has only the remedy to file a civil suit for recovery of amount now sought in the complaint. Therefore, on this ground also the complaint is not maintainable. Taking any view of the matter, this is not a fit case to grand any relief to the Complainant. So, the complaint deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.
In the result complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 1st day of October 2024.
Date of filing:15.07.2022.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Roy Agriculture
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Mahendra K. Biradar Regional Manager.
OPW2. Tojo Abraham. Agriculturist.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Account Statement.
A2. Copy of Legal Notice. dt:14.02.2022.
A3. Reply Notice. dt:10.03.2022.
A4. Copy of Agreement. dt:24.11.2020.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
B1. Project Report.
B2. Copy of Letter. dt:12.12.2020.
B3. Copy of Letter. dt:27.08.2022.
B4. Copy of e-mail. dt:17.02.2022.
B5. Copy of Agreement. dt:24.11.2020.
B6. Order in IA No.II and VI in O.S.32/2021 before the Senior Civil Judge and
J.M.F.C Gundlupet (Certified Copy).
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
