BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

29^th DAY OF MARCH 2016

O R D E R

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to refund sum of Rs.8,000/- with interest, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards financial loss and mental agony together with litigation costs.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

There are two grown up coconut trees in the property of the complainant.  OP on the request of the complainant inspected the coconut trees belonging to the complainant.  The OP has represented to the complainant that, he is having technical knowledge to take care and nurture the coconut trees.  The complainant requested the OP to provide proper nourishment to the coconut trees belonging to him on the representation and assurance given by the OP.  Complainant entrusted the work to the OP on 07.05.2015.  OP collected a sum of Rs.9,000/- from the complainant assuring that he would take care of the coconut trees of the complainant and the complainant paid the said sum of Rs.9,000/- to the OP through cheque bearing No.257972, dated 07.05.2015 drawn on SBI, Banashankari Branch, Bangalore.

3) OP after collecting the cheque has encashed the same.  Thereafter, he provided some manure known as coconut mix and thereafter he has failed and neglected to provide the required nourishment to the coconut trees and thus failed to provide proper services.  OP brought sixteen packets each packet costing Rs.55/- and has provided thirteen packets to the coconut trees and has also handed over three packets to the complainant.  OP has taken undue advantage of the complainant who is a aged person and virtually cheated the complainant by saying that each packet of coconut mix will cost Rs.450/-.  On the enquires made by the complainant subsequently, the complainant has learnt that, the Nursery Men Co-operative Society Ltd., at Lalbagh, Bangalore are selling the same coconut mix at the rate of Rs.30/- per packet.  In fact, the complainant has purchased one packet and producing herewith the bill dated 27.05.2015 issued by the Nursery Men Co-operative Society Ltd.  The complainant also produced the cash bill dated 07.05.2015 issued by the OP.  He has also produced empty cartoons of both coconut mix supplied by the OP as well as from above society.

4) The complainant made several phone calls to the OP and requested him to provide proper services for having received a sum of Rs.9,000/- from the complainant.  OP has even failed to visit & inspect the coconut trees and totally failed and neglected to provide the requisite services.  The OP accepting the purchase of sixteen packets of coconut mix has not rendered any services to the complainant.  The complainant as stated above has paid a sum of Rs.9,000/- to the OP by way of cheque referred to above.  That due to the latches on the part of OP in not providing the assured services, the complainant has suffered financial loss.

For the aforesaid reasons, complainant prays for directing OP to refund Rs.8,000/-, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of the litigation.

5) In response to the notice issued, OP entered their appearance through their advocate however failed to file their version despite sufficient time and opportunity given.  Thereafter, the complainant was called upon to file his affidavit evidence.  Accordingly, the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit in lieu of oral evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  Heard the arguments advanced by the complainant.

6) Perused the allegations made in the complaint, sworn testimony of the complainant and the documents relief upon by him.

7) Though OP appeared through their advocate but failed to contest the complaint by filing their version.  For the reasons best known to them, the OP has failed to contest the complaint, denying the allegations made against them.  We don’t find any reasons to disbelieve the allegations made in the complaint as well as the sworn testimony of the complainant.  The evidence led-in by the complainant stands unchallenged.

8) The perusal of the material placed on record goes to show that on the request of the complainant, OP inspected the coconut trees belonging to the complainant.  OP himself represented to the complainant that he is having technical knowledge to take care and nourish the coconut trees.  Complainant requested the OP to provide proper nourishment to the coconut trees belonging to him on the assurance given by the OP.  The complainant entrusted the work to the OP on 07.05.2015.  OP collected a sum of Rs.9,000/- through cheque dated 07.05.2015 from complainant.  The OP after collecting the cheque, encashed the same.  Afterwards he has provided some manure known as coconut mix and thereafter he has failed and neglected to provide the required nourishment to the coconut trees and thus failed to provide proper services.  The OP brought sixteen packets each packet costing of Rs.55/- only.  The OP provided thirteen packets to the coconut trees and has handed over three packets to the complainant.  The OP has taken undue advantage of the complainants’ innocence by misrepresenting that each packet of coconut mix will cost Rs.450/-.  The enquires made the complainant subsequently, has learnt that the Nurserymen co-operative Society Ltd., at Lalbagh, Bangalore are selling the same coconut mix at the rate of Rs.30/- per packet.  Complainant has purchased one packet and has produced the bill dated 27.05.2015 as a document.  He has produced the bill dated 27.05.2015 issued by the OP and has also produced empty cartoons of the coconut mix supplied by the OP.

9) Complainant made several phone calls to OP requested him to provide proper services for having received a sum of Rs.9,000/- from him.  The OP even failed to visit & inspect the coconut trees and neglected to provide the requisite services.  This shows gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OP which made the complainant to face financial loss.  The very fact of OP not contesting the proceedings leads us to draw an inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant.  There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced.  We are satisfied that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service against OP.  Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that OP is liable to pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant.  Further the OP has to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. 

10) In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

       O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OP is directed to pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant.  Further OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. 

OP shall comply the order passed by this Forum within a month from today.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 29^th day of March 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

COMPLAINT No.1113/2015

Complainant                 -        Sri.K.A Ramaiah Setty,

Bangalore-560 041.

                                          -vs-

Opposite Party              -        Sri.K.B Manjunath,

Sree Kalpavruksha Enterprises,

Bangalore North.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 22.02.2016.

1. Sri.K.A Ramaiah Setty,

          OP - Absent

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*