BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE:18^th May 2016         

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.: 294/2015

Complainant/s:

Bharatesh V.Patil,

Aged about 55 years,

s/o. Mr.Vardhaman R.Patil,

Kogilgeri, Post:Aravatgi,

Tal & Dist.Dharwad.

        (By Sri.P.V.Gunjal Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:

1. M/s.Siddalingeshwara Agencies, Dealer in: Finolex Plasson Industries Pvt Ltd., 34-35 Swimming Pool Complex, Hubbali 580029. By its partner Prakash B.Hanchin.

2.  Finolex Plasson Industries Pvt Ltd., P-14, Rajeev Gandhi Infotech Park, Phase-1, MIDC, Pune 411057, by its Managing Director

3. Mr.Sambhaji Patil, Sales Officer (North Karnataka), Finolex Plasson Industries Pvt Ltd., C/o. M/s. Siddalingeshwara Agencies Dealer in: Finolex Plasson Industries Pvt Ltd., 34-35 Swimming Pool Complex, Hubbali 580029

(By Sri.B.S.Hoskeri Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.8 lakhs being the loss in the income due to low yield of crop, Rs.2.40 lakhs for replantation of sugarcane siblings, Rs.1 lakh towards additional material and labour charges Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2.     The case of the complainant is that complainant had approached the respondent 1 to implant drip irrigation system manufactured by the respondent 2 and respondent.3 is also one of the dealer. According to subsidy norms of the government scheme, the respondents have to survey the lands & to have sketch for implantation of the drip systems and to install the drip systems. Despite payment of cost and despite assurance to implant the drip systems within January 2014 inspite of repeated requests and approaches the respondents did not taken steps in implanting the drip systems as assured, thereby the complainant sustained heavy loss due to low yield of crops as he could not irrigate water to his fields as desired by him thereby the complainant sustained heavy loss both financially and physically. Hence, sought for the reliefs as prayed.

3.     In response to the notice respondents appeared and protest the complaint averments in toto taking defence on all angle viz., relationship of consumer and service provider, maintainability of the complaint, cause of action, limitation point and non complying proviso Sec.12(1) (c ) of CP Act, lack of privity of contract etc., and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same and also oppose and protest the complaint by denying complainant is the owner of the land and capability of instituting the present complaint in the individual capacity, estimation of loss at the hands of respondents and non compliance by the respondent by contending those allegations are made with an ulterior motive to have unlawful gain by misutilizing the benvolency of the Act. Further contended, despite supply of materials of worth Rs.8 lakhs against meager advance amount of Rs.3 lakhs the complainant did not make arrangement to pay the cost of materials supplied. Further contended as the complainant had raised crops in his field the respondents could not surveyed & demark the land by GPS, thereby delayed in installation at the instance of the complainant only & denied the deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1.  Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?

2.  Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?

3.  To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

 Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, complainant relied on documents. Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1.    Affirmatively

2.    Accordingly

3.   As per order

R E A S O N S

P O I N T S 1 & 2

5.     At the time the present complaint reached the stage of argument on 23.03.2016 the Forum express its wishes to close the complaint by amicable settlement. For that both parties & respective LCs appearing on behalf of parties accept the proposal given by this Forum & reports the compliance through Memo dtd.11.05.2016. But the learned counsel for complainant insist for award compensation and cost of the proceedings.

6.     On going through the pleadings of both the parties and defence taken by the respondent and also observation made by this Forum at the time of admission of the complaint and also on the facts enlightened at the time of stage reached for argument for the defence counsel in order to give reliefs on equity basis by both parties this Forum inclined to express for amicable settlement on 23.03.2016. On that basis only both the parties complied the compliance through memo dtd.11.05.2016. However despite of this settlement report the complainant insist for compensation & cost of the proceedings the complainant did not produced any documents to show that he has sustained loss in the yields during the relevant time at the instance of respondent and also as per observation made there was standing crop throughout the year on the lands where at drip irrigation system to be installed. Hence there was no chances for the respondent to survey the land and demark for installation of drip by GPS the respondent could not able to get it done intime at the instance of complainant only. The complainant except producing Ex.C8 i.e yield in the lands is the average crop in general if the farmers carryout the agricultural operative works in proper in accordance with the norms of agricultural department. But in Ex.C8 it is not pertaining to the lands of the complainant as contended. Further even if Ex.C8 is taken into consideration the complainant did not produced any documents to show that how much loss or yield he received or loss sustained during the relevant period is not comingforth. Further the complainant did not produced any documents to show  that the land was his own lands and there was no obstruction to respondent to survey and to demark  to prepare the sketch. Under those circumstances the respondents have not carried the works intime cannot be accepted. Hence, the complainant failed to establish his case that he has sustained loss at the hands of the respondent. So complainant is not entitled for compensation. However the execution work has been carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant due to amicable settlement. On this view also the complainant is not entitled for compensation. Anyhow, after complainant approached this Forum and at the intereference of this Forum only the matter is settled. Hence, if it is ordered for cost of the proceedings it will not amounts to injustice or extra burden to the respondents. However respondents have relieved from the burden of heavy compensation and cost of the proceedings.

7.     In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmatively and accordingly.

8.     Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

        Complaint is disposed as per the Memo with a direction to the respondents jointly and severally to pay Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the proceedings payable within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same within stipulated period the respondents shall pay Rs.100/- for each day of delay thereon till realization. 

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 18^th day of May 2016)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR