DATE OF FILING : 5.8.2009

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26th day of April, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.145/2009

Between

Complainant : Sabu Zacharias

Panamthanath House,

Kudayathoor P.O.,

Arakkulam, Thodupuzh,

Idukki – 685 590

(By Advs: K.Pradeepkumar & M.M. Lissy)

And

Opposite Party : Sanghi Plantations,

4.3.352 Bank Street,

Sangil Nagar P.O.,

Hyderabad – 500 195.

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
 

The complainant paid Rs.1000/- to the opposite party in 1992 as consideration for selling and thereafter fostering and nurturing for the holder of sale certificate teak tree saplings. In 1993 complainant received a letter from the opposite party stating that the growth of the trees are very satisfying and also informed that the trees have gained 10 to 15 feet height. On 4^th July, 2002, the opposite party sent a letter informing the complainant that the setbacks of their company asking to withdraw from the scheme. The reason stated was that the State of Andhra Pradesh has been facing severe drought conditions as a result of lack of rainfall. The company stated that all efforts to protect the growth of trees went in vain. The opposite party also informed all the tree holders that the scheme has been extended to additional 30 years making the period of scheme as 50 years. So they stated that the maturity date of scheme is on 2042. The due date of delivery of trees was on 20/5/2012 as per the initial scheme. The opposite party instead of giving the teak tree as promised, sent a cheque of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant in 2007. The complainant was not ready to accept the same. The opposite party legally bound to give Rs.1,50,000/- which is the approximate price of a 17 years old teak trees. And hence the petition is filed.
 

2. The opposite party was absent and so called as exparte.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 and Ext. P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant.

5. The POINT :- The complainant entered in the scheme of the opposite party which is selling, fostering and nurturing of teak plants. Rs.1,000/- was paid by the complainant in 1992 as per the scheme. The opposite party offered 17 years old teak tree after the maturity of the scheme. The complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.P1 is the teak sapling sale certificate issued from the opposite party company dated 19.5.92, the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- as per this scheme. The terms and conditions of the scheme were also written in the outer side of the certificate. The duration of the scheme is written as 20 years, the due date of delivery of teak trees is 20.5.2012 as per the Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the letter received from the opposite party in 15.5.92 stating that the growth of teak trees are very satisfying and the trees have gained 10-15 feet height. Unfortunately, on 4^th July, 2002 a letter was issued to the PW1 by the opposite party stating that the State of Andhra Pradesh has been facing severe drought conditions resulting from lack of sufficient rain fall and ground water level has come down drastically forcing the State Government to take various measures to conserve the precarious water resources to the extend possible. In addition to the lack availability of water the state has been passing through a severe heatwave conditions and it was published in newspapers. More than thousands of persons have lost their lives because of the same. The adverse conditions which were beyond the control of the company, even though the company had tried all the best possible remedies to protect the teak trees. But they were in vain. So the period of scheme was extended to additional 30 years. It is also mentioned that the company is ready to refund the money collected, by Demand Drafts or through cheques. Ext. P4 is the Demand Draft issued from the company in which a sum of Rs.1,000/-is written dated 7^th August, 2007. And Ext.P5 is the letter stating the same.
 

PW1 deposited that he is liable to get Rs.1,50,000/- which is the approximate price of 17 years old teak tree. But as per Ext.P1, the sale certificate issued from the opposite party, in which the terms and conditions, as 15^th clause, it is written that the company shall not be liable to pay any damages or compensation to the certificate holder for any breach due to any unforseen circumstances. Ext. P3 letter shows that the severe drought conditions in Andhra Pradesh State prevented the opposite party from nourishing the teak plant and they informed the complainant that the period of the scheme was extended to an additional 30 years. They made every possible steps to protect the trees but because of the natural calamities in State of Andhra Pradesh destroyed the growth of the teak trees. They also sent a Demand Draft for Rs.1,000/- to the complainant dated 7^th August, 2007 for the refund of the money paid by the complainant. But the complainant is not ready to accept the same. There is no evidence for the complainant that the scheme was extended by the opposite party is not because of any unforeseen circumstance of the opposite party.

So we think that the opposite party was not able to complete the conditions mentioned in the scheme because of the act of natural calamities. Not because of their mistake. They also informed that the scheme is extended to 30 years more. But the complainant has paid Rs.1,000/- in 1992 for entering into this scheme. The unfair weather conditions of Andhra Pradesh caused only in the year 2002. So the amount paid by the complainant was with the opposite party from 1992 to 2002. So the opposite party should refund the amount to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of joining onwards.

Hence the petition is partially allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- with 12% interest from 19.5.1992 to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within one month from receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of April, 2010.

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHANAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Sabu Zacharias

On the side of the Opposite party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The teak sapling sale certificate No.56092 dated 19.05.1992 issued by the opposite party.

Ext.P2 - The letter issued by the opposite party dated 18.5.1993 to the complainant..

Ext.P3 - The letter from the opposite party dated 4.7.2002 to the complainant.

Ext.P4 - The Demand Draft No.500518 dated 7.7.2007, issued from the opposite party in which the sum is Rs.1,000/-.

Ext.P5 - Covering letter of the Ext.P4 Demand Draft.

On the side of the Opposite party :

Nil.