Karnataka

Kolar

CC/23/2015

Sri.Nagabhusan Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Om Prakash, Manager - Opp.Party(s)

R.k.Radhakrishna

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

 

Date of Filing: 27/06/2015

Date of Order: 12/04/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 12^th DAY OF APRIL 2016

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 23 OF 2015

Sri. Nagabhusan Reddy,

S/o. Thimma Reddy,

Aged About 45 Years,

R/at: Achammanahalli,

Phavgada Taluk,

Tumkur District.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. R.K. Radhakrishna, Advocate)     ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

The Manager,

Cadila Pharmaceuticles Limited,

(Farm & Nurseries Div.), Kenkare Village,

Gauribidanur-561 208,

Chickaballapur District.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth.P.M.Shankara Prasad,

Sriyuth. C. Srinivas,& Sriyuth.V.Muniraju,

Advocates)                                                     …. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, MEMBER

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred in short as “the Act”) has sought, relief of returning of Rs.6,000/- advance paid to OP on 19.12.2014 and Rs.1000/- expenses towards issuance of legal notice and Rs.5,000/- as advocate fee, as well, compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental stress and suffering damages.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, on 19.12.2014 he approached Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited office and Nursery department of OP and placed an order for supply of 1000 pomegranate saplings each costing in sum of Rs.37.50.  And OP agreed and received a sum of Rs.6,000/- as advance and promised to supply the same on 25.12.2014 and issued receipt for it.

 

(b)    It is contended that, on approach being made on 25.12.2014 to collect the pomegranate saplings as prompted by OP on 19.12.2014, the OP told to come on next week to collect saplings.

 

(c)    It is further contended that, by believing it, he had built farm house in the land bearing Sy. No.105/2 measuring to an extent of 2 acres 39 guntas and Sy. No.108/2 measuring  to an extant of 01 acre 20 guntas situated at Acchamanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, towards it he spent Rs.3,75,000/- and Rs.50,000/- to level the land, Rs.50,000/- to dig pits to plant pomegranate saplings, Rs.1,00,000/- for fencing the land and Rs.2,00,000/- for drip irrigation.

 

(d)    It is further contended that on several approaches being made to OP, they post-poned for sometime by saying some reasons and finally refused to supply the pomegranate saplings as agreed.  And that thus OP is responsible for the loss and mental agony of him.

(e)    Further it is contended that, he approached Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Pavagada, Tumkur District to avail loan of Rs.8,00,000/- to grow pomegranate saplings.  And that the Bank had sanctioned loan with lesser rate of interest for agricultural loan.  And that due to non-supply of pomegranate saplings by OP this loan became of no use.  And that if the crop were grown in time, he would have earned more than Rs.1,00,000/- per year per each crop. 

 

(f)     It is contended that, on 18.02.2015 the said Bank Officials gave an endorsement stating that, loan was cancelled because pomegranate saplings were not planted in-time and the land is not drip irrigated and thus OP is responsible for this loss.

 

(g)    And that, being aggrieved by the said act of OP, he got issued legal notice through his counsel on 11.03.2015.  And that the same has been duly served to OP for which there could be no response.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

(h)    Along with the complaint on 18.06.2015 the complainant has submitted copies of the following documents:-

(i)       Original receipt dated: 19.12.2014 issued by OP

(ii)      Letter dated: 18.02.2015 regarding rejection of loan issued by Pavagada Taluk Primary Co.op. Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited.

(iii)    RPAD receipt issued by Postal authority

(iv)     Acknowledgement

(v)      Legal Notice

 

03.   On registration of the case and issuance of the notice through RPAD the OP has put in appearance through the said learned counsel and has submitted the written version resisting claim of the complainant.

 

(a)    It is specifically contended that, the complainant had never approached for pomegranate plants and had never made any order as alleged and also had never received any advance amount from him and such entry was not made in their records.  And that the documents of him are false and created ones. 

 

(b)    It is contended that, they have not received any legal notice and if at all such transactions were made, he would have given complaint to the higher authority of the said company.

 

(c)    It is contended that, Marketing Officer and Senior Sales Officer Agro Division are the only persons having powers to accept the orders through their authorized officials of the company.  So contending, dismissal of the complaint with costs has been sought.

 

04.   After carrying-out of the amendment on the part of the complainant by deleting personal name of Shri. Omprakash shown in the designation of the OP as a Manager, the OP has again preferred additional written version resisting claim of the complainant.  There is almost reiteration of earlier contentions and it is more specifically stressed in Para-18 of this additional version to the effect that, earlier version preferred by this very OP might also be considered.  Thus once again dismissal of the complaint with costs has been sought.

 

05.   On 16.09.2015 the complainant has submitted affidavit evidence, Exhibits-P.1 to P.20(a) are marked and also submitted Memo along with the below mentioned copies of the following documents:-

(i) Receipts in different dates issued by Sait Steels & Engineering Works (12 in no.)

(ii)      Quotation issued by Sri Ramanjaneya Agencies dated: 04.02.2015.

(iii)    Quotation issued by Suvarna Irrigation Systems dated: 03.01.2015.

 

06.   On 24.08.2015 the OP has submitted affidavit evidence and Exhibits-D.1 to D.6 are marked.  And on 09.10.2015 along with Memo submitted the below mentioned documents:-

(i)       Letter of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited.

(ii)      Marketing officers visiting cards

(iii)    Brochure copy

(iv)     Order form

(v)      Security Inward Register

(vi)     Stock & Sales copy

 

07.   On 29.10.2015 the complainant Sri. Nagabhusan Reddy  was examined as PW-1 and Exhibits-P.1 to P.19 are received and marked while recording evidence of PW.1.  Whereas Exhibit-P.20 and Exhibit-P.20(a) were marked and received in evidence by way of confrontation while recording evidence of DW-1 Shri. Omprakash.  Exhibit-P.1(a) was also marked and received in evidence by way of confrontation while recording evidence of DW.1.  Sri. Omprakash on 23.12.2015.

 

08.   After carrying out of the amendment in the complaint and after submission of additional written version on behalf of the OP, Shri.Srinivasa Reddy, Sales Manager has put in his affidavit evidence for OP on 02.03.2016.  And on this very day a Memo has been submitted duly signed by the learned counsel appearing for the OP and OP to the effect that the documents already received in evidence by way of Exhibits-D1 to D.6 might by considered again.

 

09.   On 31.03.2016 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted written arguments and on 02.01.2016 the learned counsel appearing for OP has submitted written arguments.

 

10.   Heard oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

 

11.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

 

2.  If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

 

3.  What order?

 

12.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

 

POINT 1:     In the Affirmative.

 

POINT 2:     The complainant is held entitled to recover total sum of Rs.36,000/- together with interest @ 9% pa from 27.06.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization from OP.

 

POINT 3:     As per final order for the following:-

 

 

REASONS

POINTS 1 & 2:-

13.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

(a)    It is an admitted aspect that, one Shri. Omprakash was the person working as labourer at Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited, Kenkere Village, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District (reliance placed on Exhibit-D.1).

 

(b)    And it is clear from Exhibit-P.1 that, this Shri.Omprakash had received from complainant a sum of Rs.6,000/- as advance towards supply of pomegranate saplings and was to dispatch the same by 25.12.2014.

 

(c)    OP has specifically contended that, only authorized official has to accept the orders and with regard to this complainant order for said saplings there was no such entry in their records.  If so, the said Shri. Omprakash was not the authorized person to take orders from the customers.  Then how has he accepted the order of the complainant and received advance and issued receipt?  (Exhibit-P.1).

 

(d)    Besides the same Shri. Omprakash had received the legal notice of complainant and signed postal acknowledgement (Reliance placed on Exhibit-P.16).  If at all he was not a concerned person, who has allowed him to do all these transactions?  This is merely negligence of the OP.  And for this act of an OP after accepting order later on raising all these issues shows that an attempt is made to escape from the liability.  And due to this why the illiterate farmer has to suffer?  Thus OP has rendered deficient service.

 

(e)    For the reasons noted above earlier to amendment of the complaint and even after the amendment of the complaint stand taken up by the OP is that the contentions in the earlier written version shall even continue after the amendment to the complaint also (specific reliance is placed at para-18 of the additional written version preferred by the OP).  This would mean the said Shri Omprakash had every concern with OP.

 

 

(f)     When so, for the outside world, who shall be the Manager?  Who shall be the Marketing Officer?  Who shall be the Senior Sales Officer of the OP? would be of no concern.  Sri. Omprakash as DW-1 has given evidence that, he served with the OP only as a labourer and of late he has discontinued even from serving so with the OP.  It would mean this Sri. Omprakash had every concern at the relevant time while receiving said sum of Rs.6,000/- from the complainant and hence while issuing the receipt vide Exhibit-P.1 and even in Exhibit-D.1 it has been written that the said Sri. Omprakash was a labourer.  Let him be.  It was only the internal arrangement on the aspect of administration maintained by the OP for which the complainant cannot be blamed. 

 

(g)    Even in the capacity as a labourer when the said Sri. Omprakash received the said sum and issued the said receipt vide Exhibit-P.1 availability of Marketing Officer and Senior Sales Officer would be totally insignificant.  Therefore even in his affidavit evidence when said Sri. Srinivasa Reddy is to disclose his identity as a Sales Manager of the OP it would not make any difference.  Even in the presence of such different designated posts of marketing officer, senior sales officer and then sales manager, the complainant committed no fault when he approached said Sri.Omprakash who passed the said receipt Exhibit-P.1 which has every binding effect on the OP.

 

(h)    The OP cannot disown the liability by simply making self-avoiding approach by maintaining that, said Sri. Omprakash was only a labourer.  Therefore we again repeat that be it in the capacity of a labourer on the part of Sri. Omprakash for the outside world when Exhibit-P.1 has been issued by him, the same has binding effect on the OP and hence the accountability commences.  And at any rate receiving of the said amount on the part of Sri. Omprakash were to be erroneous then that error is only in the administration affair of the OP which it should rectify if need be by taking action against him for having issued such a receipt without authority.  Thus viewed from any angle we are of the firm opinion that vide Exhibit-P.1 the receipt dated: 19.12.2014 the OP had already received Rs.6,000/- from the complainant.  And this receipt of Rs.6,000/- was only to abide by the commitment of supplying 1,000 good quality saplings of pomegranate.  Hence it is clear that the order for pomegranate saplings made by complainant is true.

 

(i)     Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not supplying pomegranate saplings, even after accepting advance from complainant.  Therefore in our view the complainant is entitled to receive back the advance he paid.

 

(j)     It is true that apart from paying said sum of Rs.6,000/- to the OP which fetched no fruitful results, the complainant also spent in a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- to build farm house, Rs.50,000/- to level the land and Rs.50,000/- to dig the pits.  And he has also contended that he spent for drip irrigation.  He also contends that ultimately Pavagada Taluk Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Pavagada, Tumkur District, has refused to release sanctioned loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for want of pomegranate saplings.  Certainly these adverse developments have resulted in set back to the complainant.  In other words, had he been successful in planting the said 1,000 good quality pomegranate saplings he could and should have availed facility of the said loan from the said Bank and could have thrived.  Therefore for no reason the complainant has been made to face adversities which could have been avoided if the OP were to stand by its commitment after receiving said sum of Rs.6,000/- vide Exhibit-P.1.  Therefore we are of the definite opinion that in addition to the refund of said sum of Rs.6,000/- the complainant shall have to be compensated which we will have to quantify in a sum of Rs.30,000/-, thus the complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs.36,000/- from the OP together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 27.06.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization.

 

POINT 3:-

14.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/- against this OP as hereunder:-

 

(a)    The complainant is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.36,000/- together with interest @ 9% pa from 27.06.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization from the OP.

 

(b)    We grant time of one month to the OP to comply to the order from the date of receipt of the same.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 12^th DAY OF APRIL 2016)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                             MEMBER                 PRESIDENT