Kerala

Kollam

CC/20/2011

Kurian George,House.No.409/A,Agasthyacode,Anchal.PO from Thekkinkadu,New House,Areeplachi.PO,Punalur. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Soman@Simon,Koppara Veedu,Neelammal,Karavaloor.PO,Punalur(via) - Opp.Party(s)

Riyas.s

27 Feb 2012

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station,Kollam
Kerala
 
CC NO. 20 Of 2011
 
1. Kurian George,House.No.409/A,Agasthyacode,Anchal.PO from Thekkinkadu,New House,Areeplachi.PO,Punalur.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Soman@Simon,Koppara Veedu,Neelammal,Karavaloor.PO,Punalur(via)
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MRS. VASANTHAKUMARI G PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE MR. VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member Member
 HONORABLE MRS. RAVI SUSHA MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

R.Vijayakumar, Member

 

 

The complaint is filed for the return of balance amount in advance Rs.700/- for getting the price of shoots of plantain tree Rs.2000/- with interest at the rate of 12% and Rs.20,000/- to compensate financial loss. The complainant further prayed for compensation for mental agony Rs.10,000/- and cost Rs.3000/-.

 

 

 

(2)

 

Briefly stated the facts of the case is that the opposite party who is an agricultural worker had committed deficiency in service after receiving an advance amount Rs.2000/- for planting shoots of plantain tree in the farm owned by the complainant. As agreed by the parties, the opposite party started agricultural labour in the farm owned by the complainant for  daily wages of Rs.300/- from July 2009. The complainant had received Rs.2000/- as wages in advance and agreed to recover the same from his weekly wages at the rate of Rs.500/- each. But the opposite party failed to do the work as agreed by him. The complainant sent an Advocate notice But no reply was received from the opposite party. Due to the negligence and deficiency in service from the side of opposite party, the complainant sustained financial loss and mental agony. Hence the complaint.

 

Even though sufficient opportunity has been given, the opposite party remained absent and failed to file version. Set exparte. The complainant filed affidavit. PW1 was examined. Exts.P1 to P6 marked.

 

The points that would arise for consideration are:

 

1.     Whether the complaint is maintainable in this Forum?

2.     Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?

3.     Compensation and cost.

 

The points can be considered together for the sake of convenience.

 

We have perused the complaint, affidavit and documents produced by the complainant.Ext.P1 is the receipt dated: 29/08/09 for Rs.2000/- signed by the opposite party from which it is evident that he had received

(3)

 

Rs.2000/- as Onam advance and agreed to recover the same from his weekly wages at the rate of Rs.500/- each.

 

On perusal of Ext.P2 it is found that one K.Isac Panicker had received Rs.2000/- from the complainant as the price of 200 numbers of shoots of plantain tree.

 

Ext.P3 is the notice dated: 3/10/09 issued by the complainant to the opposite party demanding the opposite party to plant the shoots of plantain tree and to pay the balance amount Rs.700/-.From the notice it is clear that opposite party had done 16 days work after Onam and the complainant had recovered Rs.1300/- from the onam advance amount Rs.2000/-.

 

EXt.P4 is the Advocate notice. Ext.P5 and P6 are postal receipt and acknowledgment card.

 

We have carefully perused the documents adduced by the complainant. The complainant has not produced any document to show that there was an agreement between the parties regarding the plantation of shoots of plantain tree. The specific allegation of the complainant is regarding the deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party in planting shoots of plantain tree and the complainant has sustained heavy loss and mental agony due to the deficient act of the opposite party. The complainant failed to prove the specific allegation of deficiency in service from the part of opposite party regarding the plantation of shoots of plantain tree.

 

 

(4)

 

Another contention of the complainant is that advance amount could not be recovered fully from the opposite party as agreed by him. This contention is not related to the deficiency in service. The nature of this contention is settlement of account which is not maintainable in the forum. The complainant can approach the proper Forum to litigate the matter.

 

The complainant failed to establish the alleged deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.

 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

 

Dated this the 27th day of February 2012.

 

 

G.Vasanthakumari         :Sd/-

 

Adv.Ravi Susha              :Sd/-

 

R.Vijayakumar               :Sd/-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                          

(5)

 

INDEX

 

List of witness for the complainant

 

PW1            - Kurian George

 

List of documents for the complainant

 

P1               - Receipt dated: 29/08/2009

P2               - Receipt dated: 30/09/09

P3               - Office copy of registered notice and Postal Receipt

P4               - Office copy of Advocate notice dated: 09/11/09

P5               - Postal Receipt

P6               - Acknowledgment card

 

 

 

 
 
[HONORABLE MRS. VASANTHAKUMARI G]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE MR. VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member]
Member
 
[HONORABLE MRS. RAVI SUSHA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.