DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  22^nd day of January,  2024

Present      :  Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                      Date of Filing: 25/07/2022    

     CC/132/2022

Sureshbabu,

S/o. Sundareswaran P.,

Babu Nivas, Puthiyapalayam,

Kuthanoor, Alathur,

Palakkad – 678 721.                                                                -           Complainant

(By Adv. M/s M.R. Manikantan & Sandya V.)

                                                                                    Vs

1. M/s.Susthira Farmers Producer Co.Ltd.,

IRTC Jubilee Campus,

8/463, Mundur (PO),

Palakkad – 678 592.         

2.             Shanooj, Managing Director cum CEO,

M/s.Susthira Farmers Producer Co.Ltd.,

IRTC Jubilee Campus,

8/463, Mundur (PO),

Palakkad – 678 592.                                           -           Opposite parties  

(OPs  by Adv. K. Dhananjayan)

                                                                                    O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Essential grievance for appreciation and adjudication of the dispute is that the complainant engaged the opposite parties for commissioning and maintaining a 4 diameter (15000 ltrs) biofloc pond for cultivation of fish at his property. But due to the negligence, latches and carelessness and lack of support from / on the part of the OPs the complainant suffered loss. The materials used for construction of the pond was also not of good quality causing leak. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed seeking return of amounts spent for construction and for compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. The OPs contested complaint pleadings stating that they had carried out all their legal and contractual obligations and that there are no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. The complainant had in violation of the advises given grew a species of fish knows as “nutter”. This fish is aggressive in nature and will scratch and bite the biofloc fish tank.  The complainant should have grown the species of ‘thilopia’. Further more, the complainant had used the motor associated with the pond for over 2.5 years. There is no loss sustained by the complainant and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The following issues were framed for consideration:

1. Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving that the materials used for construction of the tank were of substandard quality?
2. Whether the complainant had committed variance of terms and condition of contract?
3.  Whether the loss caused to the complainant was due to the negligence, variance and violation of terms and condition of their agreement?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed?

6.         Any other reliefs?

4.         (i)     Evidence comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A3(series).  

Even though the complainant had in their argument notes stated that the complainant was examined as PW1, it is only a mistake of fact. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties in this case.

(ii)     OPs filed proof affidavit, but did not have any documentary or oral evidence.   

            Issue No.1

5.         Complainant’s case is that he had engaged the OPs for installation commissioning and maintenance of a 15000 ltr biofloc pond for cultivation of fish. He further contest that the said pond was made of substandard materials leading to leak. The OPs vehemently objected the complainant pleadings and stated that it was due to cultivate an aggressive variety of fish called “nutter” that the pond developed leak.

6.         Evidence on the part of complainant comprised of 3 documents which were marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is the proposal which was accepted by the complainant and acted upon by the parties to the same and had fructified into a contract. Ext.A2   is a communication from the complainant to opposite parties with regard to the alleged defects. Ext.A3 is a lawyer’s notice and postal receipt and AD cards caused to be issued by the complainant to the OPs.

7.         None of the documents produced by the complainant prove the pleading of the complainant that the pond was made of substandard materials. When the allegation of using substandard materials was vehemently denied by the OPs, burden of proof was upon the complainant to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence.  Having failed to do so, this Commission has no qualms to hold that the complainant has failed to prove his allegations raised in the complaint.  

Issue Nos. 2 & 3

8.         Apropos the finding in issue no.1, discussion on these two issues is not necessitated.  Yet, in order to alleviate any confusion, we reiterated that the complainant has failed to prove that the OPs had failed to provide any support by way of water treatment, sterilization, incubation and maintenance till the end of 1^st harvesting.  Thus, these issues are also found against the complainant.

             Issue Nos. 4, 5 & 6  

9.        Resultant to findings is issue No.1 we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that materials used for construction of the tank were of substandard quality.

10.       The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.

11.       In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

 Pronounced in open court on this the 22^nd  day of January, 2024.  

                                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                       

                                                                                                  Vinay Menon V

                                                         President

         Sd/-                                                                      Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                          Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1   -  Scanned copy of proposal form dated 11/8/2020

Ext.A2  –  Copy of communication dated 2/3/2021   

Ext.A3   -  Copy of lawyers notice alongwith postal receipts and AD cards.   

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.