By Jayasree Kallat, Member: Complaint was filed on 10-2-2010. C.K. Sasi, the complainant in this case has filed the petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant had submitted application before the opposite party for obtaining permission pass for bags of sand. Permit was granted on 5th January 2010. Complainant had obtained sand from Parakkadavu. Complainant alleges that the sand he received was of very low quality. Instead of sand he got mud. When the labourers inspected the sand they told the complainant that as the sand is of very low quality it cannot be used for the construction of the house. Complainant immediately informed the opposite party. Complainant could not use the whole lot of sand. Complainant also could not use 15 bags of cement which he kept in stock, due to the low quality of sand. Complainant has filed the petition for compensation for his financial loss and mental agony. Opposite party filed a version, stating that the complainant was given a permit as per his application. Complainant was given a token to collect the sand from Parakkadavu. Accordingly complainant received the sand on 11-1-2010. Panchayath accept the application for the permit and give token to particular place where the sand is available. A Receiver is appointed at these places who is the authority to give permit and sand as well. Sand from different places are of different quality. Hence the applicants are specially requested to check and assure the quantity and quality of the sand themselves. Panchayath does not have any system to check the quality. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party. Opposite party also submits that out of the money collected 50% goes to Collector’s River managing fund and to the Geology department. Opposite party is not liable to refund the amount. The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? PW1 was examined and Ext.A1 and A2 were marked on complainant’s side. Sand was marked as M.O.1 which was verified and returned back to the complainant. No oral or documentary evidence on the side of opposite party. The case of the complainant is that he had applied to the opposite party for getting pass for collecting sand. Accordingly he received a token. He deposited money with the Receiver and collected the sand from Parakkadavu. The complainant alleges that the sand he received was of very low quality, hence he could not use the sand for the construction of his house. Opposite party has taken the contention that itis the duty of the complainant to check the quantity and quality of the sand before receiving. At this instance complainant had produced sand taken from Parakkadavu which was marked as M.O1. the Forum had verified the sand and were convinced that sand was of very poor quality and so the complainant was unable to use the sand for the construction of his house. As opposite party has deputed a person with a designation receiver who collected the money and disburse the sand, opposite party is duty bound to make sure that the customers get good quality material. From the evidence and a perusal of M.O1 we are of the opinion that the complainant was given very low quality of sand which was useless. As the consumers are unable to get sand from any where else they had to depend upon opposite party only for getting sand for their construction purposes. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get good quality sand. In the result the petition is allowed and opposite party is directed to make necessary steps to replace the low quality sand given to the complainant with good quality of sand failing which opposite party is directed to return back Rs.2390/- to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.500/-,. On making available the good quality of sand or paying the amount opposite party can take back the low quality sand already given to the complainant. Pronounced in the open court this the 31st day of May 2010. Date of filing:10.02.2010 SD/- PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/- MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant: A1. Photocopy of pass issued by O.P. to the complainant. A2. Photocopy of receipt. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. Nil Witness examined for the complainant: PW1. Sasi.C.K. (Complainant) Witness examined for the opposite party. None Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
| | [HONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA.,] Member[HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB.,] PRESIDENT[HONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB.,] Member | | 
