Date of filing:-11/01/2017.
Date of Order:-27/11/2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 01 of 2017.
Raj Kumar Sahu, aged about 55(fifty five) years, S/o Late Jibardhan Sahu, Occupation- Cultivation and Driving R/o and Po. Sarakanda, Ps. Sohela, Dist. Bargarh, Pin-768032 (odisha) ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Sibaji Biswal, S/o Paltan Biswal,
Biranchi Bhue, S/o Arkhita Bhue,
Both resident of Balijori, Po. Nileswar, Ps. Bargarh Sadar, Dist. Bargarh, Pin-578029(Odisha) ..... ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri P.K. Mahapatra, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri D.N.Sahu, Advocate with others Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.27/11/2017. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, Member(M):-
This being a Consumer Complaint preferred U/s 12 Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the Complaint is narrated below :-
The Complaint contends that the Complainant is a poor farmer and to earn his livelihood by self employment on Dt. 13/05/2015 hired the JCB machine of Opposite Party No.1(one) on lease basis to work in the fields of other co-farmers. The JCB was agreed on the lease condition of Rs. 850/-(Rupees eight hundred fifty)only per working hour service including the diesel. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is the Munsi(clerk) of the Opposite Party No.1(one). Further the Complaint contends that the Complainant had to make payment of lease amount on Dt 30/05/2015 but on Dt. 25/05/2015 at about 11 PM in the night both the Opposite Parties reached at the house of the Complainant and demanded Rs. 28,400/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand four hundred)only for the lease amount of JCB machine, when the Complainant showed his unwillingness to pay the lease amount to the Opposite Parties, they abused him in filthy language and threatened him of dire consequences. The Complainant then out of fear paid Rs. 28,400/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand four hundred)only to Opposite Party No.1(one) without making any calculation, and without any receipt. Further more the Complainant reveals that on calculation the Complainant found the JCB machine has worked for 46 hours 54 minute and the total hire charges became Rs. 39,865/-(Rupees thirty nine thousand eight hundred sixty five)only at the rate of Rs. 850/-(Rupees eight hundred fifty)only per hour and after adjustment of the amount of Rs.16,500/-(Rupees sixteen thousand five hundred)only towards cost of diesel poured in the JCB during the period, Rs. 500/-(Rupees five hundred)only towards cost of plough, Rs.240/-(Rupees two hundred forty) and Rs. 24/-(Rupees twenty four) towards cost of fish and tiffin paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1(one) it was found that the Complainant had paid an excess amount of Rs. 5,799-/(Rupees five thousand seven hundred ninety nine)only then actual claim, that Opposite Party No.1(one) had manipulated the calculation sheet changing the same to be 50 hour 54 minutes deleting the original.
Further the Complaint contends that on Dt. 15/06/2015 at about 8:38 PM the Opposite Party No.2(two) abused him and his wife and daughter in vulgar language and threatened him of dire consequence which matter was reported in the Sohela Police Station and as the Sohela Police did not take any step in the matter, S.P. Bargarh and D.I.G. of Police Sambalpur were also informed of the facts with written applications in furtherance of which the Complainant had to remain absent from his crop field and made negligence in agricultural work for which the agricultural loss accessed by him of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only the excess amount of Rs. 5,799/-(Rupees five thousand seven hundred ninety nine)only paid to the Opposite Party No.1(one). The Complainant claims a modest sum of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) only against the Opposite Parties for the loss of practice of his family for the acts of Opposite Parties.
Further the Complaint contends that the Opposite Party No.1(one) is the principal and Opposite Party No.2(two) is his clerk, so both of them are liable jointly and severally for the deficiency in service caused by them to the Complainant and the Complainant prays the Forum to direct the Opposite Party No.1(one) to pay the entire claim amount of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only to the Complainant but in the prayer portion of the Complaint, the Complainant has sought for the redressal against the Opposite Parties for Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)mentioned above along with interest at the rate of 18% (eighteen percent) per annum which includes all counts.
The Complainant in support of his contention relies upon xerox copies of the following documents:-
List of documents :-
Application of Complainant to the D.I.G., Sambalpur. (1 sheet).
Application by the Complainant to Collector, Bargarh. (1 sheet).
Acknowledgment vide No. 100815114 (1 sheet).
Calculation sheet made by OP No.1.(1 sheet).
Complaint made by the Complainant before I.I.C. Sohela, Police Station (1 sheet).
Application by the Complainant to the D.I.G. Sambalpur. (1 sheet).
Being noticed the Opposite Parties appeared through their respective counsels and filed version denying almost all the allegations of the Complaint.
The Opposite Parties in their version have specifically denied the allegations of the Complaint that the Complainant hiring the JCB machine of the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt. 13/05/2015 on lease basis to work in the filed of other farmers of the village with an agreed lease amount of Rs. 850/-(Rupees eight hundred fifty)only per hour including the required diesel and that the Complainant had to make payment of the lease amount of Dt. 30/05/2015 to the Opposite Party No.1(one) and that on Dt. 25/05/2015 at about 11 PM in the night both the Opposite Parties came to the Complainant and demanded Rs. 28,400/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand four hundred)only claiming the same to be the lease amount of the JCB machine and that the Opposite Parties abused the Complainant in filthy language, forced him to pay Rs. 28,400/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand four hundred)only and threatened him of dire consequences and out of fear the Complainant paid Rs. 28,400/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand four hundred)only to the Opposite Party No.1(one) without making any calculation and further allegation that the Complainant ascertained that the JCB was engaged for 46 hours and 54 minutes in total and total hire charges comes to Rs. 39,865/-(Rupees thirty nine thousand eight hundred sixty five)only at the rate of Rs.850/-(Rupees eight hundred fifty)only per hour and after adjustment of the amount of Rs. 16,500/-(Rupees sixteen thousand five hundred)only towards cost of diesel filed in the JCB during the period Rs. 500/-(Rupees five hundred)only towards cost of plough, Rs.240/-(Rupees two hundred forty) and Rs.24/-(Rupees twenty four) towards cost of fish and tiffin paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1(one) and the Opposite Party No.1(one) had taken an excess amount of Rs. 5,799/-(Rupees five thousand seven hundred ninety nine)only than his actual claim due and the Opposite Party No.1(one) had manipulated the calculation sheet mentioning 50 hours 54 minutes deleting 46 hours 54 minutes in his own hand.
Further the Opposite Parties in their version have denied the allegations that when the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to refund the excess paid amount the Opposite Parties refused to do so and at about 8.38 PM on Dt. 15/06/2015, the Opposite Party No.2(two) at the instance of of Opposite Party No.1(one) threatened the Complainant of dire consequences and abused him and his wife and daughter in vulgar language and also threatened him (the Complainant) to assault when he comes to Bargarh and that due to use of vulgar language by the Opposite parties against him and his wife and daughter and threat to Complainant of his life and property was an extreme unguishment and ingenuity and for which he claimed a modest sum of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only as compensation and further denied the allegation that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency of service against the Complainant by forcing him to pay Rs. 5,799/-(Rupees five thousand seven hundred ninety nine)only excess than the actual due and the use of filthy language against his wife and daughter by the Opposite Parties.
Further the Opposite Parties in their version admitted the facts that the Complainant has lodged a criminal case bearing GR Case No. 6690 of 2015 against the Opposite Parties before the JMFC, Sohela and that Opposite Party No.2(two) is the clerk (munsi) of Opposite Party No.1(one).
Further the Opposite Parties in their version have contended that even if the Complainant has brought the charge of cheating against the Opposite Parties but the investigating officer in the G.R. Case No. 669/15 has not found a single evidence of cheating prescribed under the provision of Indian Penal Code rather charge sheet has been filed U/s 294/506/34 of IPC. The Opposite Parties in their version have narrated their case that the Opposite Party No.1(one) had given his JCB to his brother in law namely Satyananda Barik of Sarkanda for his personal cultivation work but Satyananda Barik had indulged the JCB in the filed of others to earn money and driver of the JCB protested the same, Satyananda Barik abused him, assaulted him and snatched away the calculation sheet from him. That when Opposite Party No.1(one) went to Sarkanda to look after the JCB works, his driver intimated him about the fact and ask for his money, the said Satyananda Barik in connivance with the Complainant abused the Opposite Party No.1(one) in abscene language and threatened him to kill if asks for money. Further the version contends that Satyananda Barik in connivance with the Complainant has foisted false case against the Opposite Parties in order to pressurize them not to claim money.
Again the Opposite Parties in their version have contended that as there no relation between the Complainant and Opposite Parties as purchaser and seller, the question of rendering any service does not arise rather the Complainant has not come up with the clearn hand having ulterior motive against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have sought for the redressal of the Forum to dismiss the complaint against them along with cost and to penalize the Complainant U/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986.
The Opposite Parties have filed documents below to prove their case.
Certified copy of F.I.R., charge sheet and 161 statements in G.R.Case No. 669/2015 in the Court of JMFC, Sohela (10 sheets).
Gone through the entire case record, pleadings of the parties and documents available in the case record, the points need to be decided in this complaint are as follows:-
Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties and the complaint is maintainable before this Forum ?
Whether the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency in service ennumerated under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 ?
For what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
The police papers filed by the Opposite Parties, it is unanimously and uniformly stated by all the witnesses in their 161 statements that Raj Kumar Sahu had taken the JCB machine of Opposite Party No.1(one) on rental basis and on Dt.25/05/2015 both the Opposite Parties have visited to the house of Complainant at village Sankarda and there was a calculation between the Opposite Parties and the Complainant in respect of the rent of the JCB machine which was found to be Rs. 28,400/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand four hundred)only paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties, and later on after some days Raj Kumar Sahu complaint before the witnesses that on wrong calculation he had paid excess of Rs.6,105/-(Rupees six thousand one hundred five)only to the Opposite Parties. So here two things are established, the JCB machine was taken by the Complainant on rental basis and towards service charges consideration money of Rs. 28,400/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand four hundred)only was received by the Opposite Parties from the Complainant. Hence the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties and the Complaint is well maintainable before the consumer Forum under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence the first point is decided assertively.
Secondly with regard to the commission of deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant, Admittedly the Complainant has filed his complaint supported by an Affidavit along with several documents i.e. the copy of the F.I.R, filed before the I.I.C. Sohela and has also reported the matter before the Collector, Bargarh and the D.I.G, Sambalpur which reveals that there is some dissension between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties with regard to the alleged JCB and the differential amount paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties and it reveals from the materials available in the record that though the Opposite Parties have not directly admitted that he has not leased out the said vehicle to the Complainant but as per his contention in his averments made in his version that he has given the same to his brother-in-law to work in his field and in the field of other co-farmers of the village on the other hand he has also contended in his version that he was not pulling well with his brother-in-law hence in his connivance the Complainant has filed the case, from such of his contention it is crystal clear that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has given in lease, the said JCB vehicle to the Complainant to work in his field and in the field of the co-farmers of his village @ Rs.850/-(Rupees eight hundred fifty)only per hour in addition to that the Opposite Party No.1(one) could have denied the same if it is not a fact by way of a counter affidavit which he has not opt for, nor have filed any oral evidence of his driver or his said brother-in-law to counter the Complaint of the Complainant, so in our view mere denial of the averments of the Complaint without any substantive prove amounts to admission by the Opposite Parties. In furtherance to our observation the Opposite Parties have never before filing of the case have ever denied before the police or have ever filed any counter case before the police against the Complainant, rather it is found from the contention made in the para-12 of the version of the Opposite Parties that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has gone to Sarkanda to look after the JCP and there was a calculation sheet which was snatched away by his brother-in-law from his driver, to which the Opposite Party No.1(one) could have reported before the police but he has not done so. More over if at all the Opposite Party No.1(one) has not given on the basis of oral lease then why such a poor rustic villager would run after from pillar to post to get justice and to get refund of the excess amount which is meager amount for the Opposite Parties but a big amount for the poor Complainant, more over it is seen from the materials available in the record that the Complainant is a rustic and illiterate villager for which he has taken the help of some people, so there might be some mistake in the drafting in filing before the authorities regarding the amount mentioned therein and the calculation sheet but that cannot be ground to disbelief his case and in furtherance to our observation the Opposite Parties have never taken any steps before any authorities to destabilize the case of the Complainant but instead has snatched away the vehicle and excess amounts of money from the Complainant by showing muscles power. Thus it is apparently established the case of the Complainant to be true in our honest views, from such of our observation it is clearly established a case of deficient action of the Opposite Parties against the Complainant and as such is liable for action as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act-1986, hence our views is expressed accordingly in favor of the Complainant.
Thirdly with regard to the question as to whether the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs, in this context we are of the consensus views that as we have already analyzed the case in details in our foregoing paragraphs at length and have expressed our views in favor of the Complainant. We are of the views that the Complainant is entitled to the compensation for which the Opposite Party No.1(one) is solely liable, as his clerk (Munsi)Opposite Party No.2(two), has done all the act alleged at the instance of the Opposite Party No.1(one), hence he is exonerated from payments of any claim amount, hence order follows.
O R D E R
Hence the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,799/-(Rupees five thousand seven hundred ninety nine)only with interest @ 6%(six percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of this Order and pay an amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only to the Complainant in lieu of the mental physical and monetary harassment caused to him by the Opposite Party No.1(one), within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order in default of which the total amount would carry interest @ 12%(twelve percent) per annum till the actual realization of the amount.
Hence the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one), accordingly the order is pronounced in the Open Forum to-day i.e. on Dt. 27.11.2017 and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r (M).
I agree, I agree,
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra) ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r (W)
