State Karnataka V/S Shivakumar - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2571

Shivakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Karnataka - Opp.Party(s)

C.Nagaraj

07 Feb 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2571

Shivakumar						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
State Karnataka						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 07th FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2571/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Shivakumar, President, Karakushala Kaigarika Sahakara Sangha Limited, Backchowdi Tq. & Dist., Bidar (Karnataka) Represented by its duly constituted GPA Holder Sri. Vyjinath, S/o. Late Gundappa, Aged about 56 years, Residing at No. 91/42, 8th Main, 14th Cross, Lakkasandra, Bangalore 560 030. Advocate (C. Nagaraj) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY State of Karnataka, By Additional Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection & Maintenance) Aranya Bhavana Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 003. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to release 2MT of sandal wood from Shimoga Depo and 400 kgs. of sandal wood from Dharwad Depo and pay a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is the Karakushala Kaigarika Sahakara Sangha Limited registered under the Co-operative Societies Act having nearly 300 artisans to execute the work of sandal wood craft on made to order basis. To promote the said occupation complainant society sought for allotment of 10 MT of sandal wood from the Government namely the OP. In that regard complainant deposited Rs.57,11,656/- on 04.04.2007 and another Rs.17,13,497/-. The Government was pleased to pass a G.O. on 23.05.2005 allotting the sandal wood to the complainant society for the period 2005 to 2008. Though OP received the entire cost of the said sandal wood, it has released only 3 MT of sandal wood from Shimoga Depo and 1100 kgs. of sandal wood from Dharwad depo. Complainant is yet to get 2MT of sandal wood for the relevant year. Inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP failed to keep up its promise. For want of sandal wood the artisans become jobless. Because of the non-production of the craft products complainant society sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. When their repeated claim made to OP went in futile they felt the deficiency in service. Though complainant invested the hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act. The purpose for which complainant sought for allotment and release of the sandal wood is for business purpose and to run the industry. When the transaction is for commercial purpose complainant cannot seek the relief under the C.P. Act. OP did supply the sandal wood for the year 2005-06, but since there is a practical difficulty and non-availability of the expected quantity of sandal wood for the subsequent year, it is not able to supply the same. OP made representation to the Government to reconsider the earlier G.O dated 23.05.2005. Thereafter the Government is pleased to pass a recent G.O. on 23.12.2008 superseding the earlier G.O. wherein supply of sandal wood to the society like complainant is barred. Under such circumstances OP is not at fault. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that as per the G.O. dated 23.05.2005 OP promised to supply 10MT of sandal wood to the complainant Co-operative Society which is engaged in manufacturing of the sandal wood craft on made to order basis. The fact that OP received the huge sum of Rs.57,11,656/- on 04.04.2007 with respect to Shimoga Depo and Rs.17,13,497/- with respect to Dharwad Depo is not at dispute. OP received the said amount as a deposit for the needful supply of the sandal wood to the complainant society for the period 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Now the grievance of the complainant is that after collecting such a huge amount released only part of the sandal wood and it is still in due to release 2 MT of sandal wood from Shimoga Depo and 400 kgs. of sandal wood from Dharwad Depo. Of course OP has not disputed this fact. 7. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. The admitted facts need not be proved. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP is that because of the non-availability of the sandal wood they are rather constrained to supply the same, though they supplied ceaseable quantity of sandal wood for the year 2005-06. It appears OP expressed its inability to the Government and then the Government reconsidering all the facts passed the subsequent G.O. on 23.12.2008 superseding the earlier G.O. dated 23.05.2005. The subsequent G.O. specifically bars the supply of sandal wood to the society like complainant, that is reason why they have not supplied the sandal wood. Of course the hands of the OP are tied because of this subsequent G.O. But the fact remains is that though OP received the huge amount in the year 2007 as deposit, what made them to keep quiet for all these years in not supplying the sandal wood and not moving the Government to issue suitable G.O. is not known. Here we find the deficiency in service. 8. OP having retained the said amount rather accrued the wrongful gain to self and caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of theirs. It is also not at dispute that complainant society has employed 300 artisans to execute the work of sandal wood craft on made to order basis and they are paid accordingly. Because of the non-supply of the sandal wood in time, those artisans have become jobless and the society naturally must have fetched the financial loss. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. 9. It is much contended by the OP that the complainant is not a consumer and the so called transaction is for commercial purpose, business and industries purpose, hence he cannot seek the relief under the C.P. Act. We do not find force in the said contention. Complainant is a Karakushala Kaigarika Sahakara Sangha Limited duly registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Complainant society classifieds as home industry which is providing jobs to the jobless artisans running the same on no profit basis, they eek their bread by executing the work of sandal wood craft. Complainant society accepts the orders on made to order basis and without such substantial profit carry out the transactions. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that complainant is carrying out the business for commercial purpose. Accordingly we do not find bone of contention in the said defence set out by the OP. 10. If the complainant was to invest such a huge amount in some other business transaction it would have accrued the lump sum profit. Because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP it is deprived of the said profit and income. On the perusal of the records complainant being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP filed this complaint on 27.11.2008, after making many more correspondence, but all the efforts made by the complainant to redress his grievance, went in futile. OP did not respond well. After coming to know of filing of this complaint in all probability OP opened its eyes and a subsequent G.O. dated 23.12.2008 came to be issued. If OP is aware of the fact of non-availability of the sandal wood, it would have been more fair on the part of the OP to intimate the same to the complainant and refund the remaining amount. But no such steps are taken. So there is no transparency in the defence of the OP. Keeping quiet for all these years loudly speaks about the unfair tactics adopted by the OP. 11. In view of the discussions made by us, we are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Of course in view of the latest G.O. we cannot direct OP to supply the remaining sandal wood as prayed by the complainant. The justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the cost of the sandal wood with respect to non-supply of 2MT of sandal wood from Shimoga Depo and 400 kgs. of sandal wood from Dharwad Depo along with 9% p.a. interest and also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with regard to the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund the cost of 2MT of sandal wood to be released from Shimoga Depo and 400 kgs. of sandal wood to be released from Dharwad Depo with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from May 2007 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 07th day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 07th FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2571/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Shivakumar, President, Karakushala Kaigarika Sahakara Sangha Limited, Backchowdi Tq. & Dist., Bidar (Karnataka) Represented by its duly constituted GPA Holder Sri. Vyjinath, S/o. Late Gundappa, Aged about 56 years, Residing at No. 91/42, 8th Main, 14th Cross, Lakkasandra, Bangalore 560 030. Advocate (C. Nagaraj) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY State of Karnataka, By Additional Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection & Maintenance) Aranya Bhavana Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 003. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to release 2MT of sandal wood from Shimoga Depo and 400 kgs. of sandal wood from Dharwad Depo and pay a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is the Karakushala Kaigarika Sahakara Sangha Limited registered under the Co-operative Societies Act having nearly 300 artisans to execute the work of sandal wood craft on made to order basis. To promote the said occupation complainant society sought for allotment of 10 MT of sandal wood from the Government namely the OP. In that regard complainant deposited Rs.57,11,656/- on 04.04.2007 and another Rs.17,13,497/-. The Government was pleased to pass a G.O. on 23.05.2005 allotting the sandal wood to the complainant society for the period 2005 to 2008. Though OP received the entire cost of the said sandal wood, it has released only 3 MT of sandal wood from Shimoga Depo and 1100 kgs. of sandal wood from Dharwad depo. Complainant is yet to get 2MT of sandal wood for the relevant year. Inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP failed to keep up its promise. For want of sandal wood the artisans become jobless. Because of the non-production of the craft products complainant society sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. When their repeated claim made to OP went in futile they felt the deficiency in service. Though complainant invested the hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act. The purpose for which complainant sought for allotment and release of the sandal wood is for business purpose and to run the industry. When the transaction is for commercial purpose complainant cannot seek the relief under the C.P. Act. OP did supply the sandal wood for the year 2005-06, but since there is a practical difficulty and non-availability of the expected quantity of sandal wood for the subsequent year, it is not able to supply the same. OP made representation to the Government to reconsider the earlier G.O dated 23.05.2005. Thereafter the Government is pleased to pass a recent G.O. on 23.12.2008 superseding the earlier G.O. wherein supply of sandal wood to the society like complainant is barred. Under such circumstances OP is not at fault. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that as per the G.O. dated 23.05.2005 OP promised to supply 10MT of sandal wood to the complainant Co-operative Society which is engaged in manufacturing of the sandal wood craft on made to order basis. The fact that OP received the huge sum of Rs.57,11,656/- on 04.04.2007 with respect to Shimoga Depo and Rs.17,13,497/- with respect to Dharwad Depo is not at dispute. OP received the said amount as a deposit for the needful supply of the sandal wood to the complainant society for the period 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Now the grievance of the complainant is that after collecting such a huge amount released only part of the sandal wood and it is still in due to release 2 MT of sandal wood from Shimoga Depo and 400 kgs. of sandal wood from Dharwad Depo. Of course OP has not disputed this fact. 7. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. The admitted facts need not be proved. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP is that because of the non-availability of the sandal wood they are rather constrained to supply the same, though they supplied ceaseable quantity of sandal wood for the year 2005-06. It appears OP expressed its inability to the Government and then the Government reconsidering all the facts passed the subsequent G.O. on 23.12.2008 superseding the earlier G.O. dated 23.05.2005. The subsequent G.O. specifically bars the supply of sandal wood to the society like complainant, that is reason why they have not supplied the sandal wood. Of course the hands of the OP are tied because of this subsequent G.O. But the fact remains is that though OP received the huge amount in the year 2007 as deposit, what made them to keep quiet for all these years in not supplying the sandal wood and not moving the Government to issue suitable G.O. is not known. Here we find the deficiency in service. 8. OP having retained the said amount rather accrued the wrongful gain to self and caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of theirs. It is also not at dispute that complainant society has employed 300 artisans to execute the work of sandal wood craft on made to order basis and they are paid accordingly. Because of the non-supply of the sandal wood in time, those artisans have become jobless and the society naturally must have fetched the financial loss. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. 9. It is much contended by the OP that the complainant is not a consumer and the so called transaction is for commercial purpose, business and industries purpose, hence he cannot seek the relief under the C.P. Act. We do not find force in the said contention. Complainant is a Karakushala Kaigarika Sahakara Sangha Limited duly registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Complainant society classifieds as home industry which is providing jobs to the jobless artisans running the same on no profit basis, they eek their bread by executing the work of sandal wood craft. Complainant society accepts the orders on made to order basis and without such substantial profit carry out the transactions. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that complainant is carrying out the business for commercial purpose. Accordingly we do not find bone of contention in the said defence set out by the OP. 10. If the complainant was to invest such a huge amount in some other business transaction it would have accrued the lump sum profit. Because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP it is deprived of the said profit and income. On the perusal of the records complainant being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP filed this complaint on 27.11.2008, after making many more correspondence, but all the efforts made by the complainant to redress his grievance, went in futile. OP did not respond well. After coming to know of filing of this complaint in all probability OP opened its eyes and a subsequent G.O. dated 23.12.2008 came to be issued. If OP is aware of the fact of non-availability of the sandal wood, it would have been more fair on the part of the OP to intimate the same to the complainant and refund the remaining amount. But no such steps are taken. So there is no transparency in the defence of the OP. Keeping quiet for all these years loudly speaks about the unfair tactics adopted by the OP. 11. In view of the discussions made by us, we are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Of course in view of the latest G.O. we cannot direct OP to supply the remaining sandal wood as prayed by the complainant. The justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the cost of the sandal wood with respect to non-supply of 2MT of sandal wood from Shimoga Depo and 400 kgs. of sandal wood from Dharwad Depo along with 9% p.a. interest and also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with regard to the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund the cost of 2MT of sandal wood to be released from Shimoga Depo and 400 kgs. of sandal wood to be released from Dharwad Depo with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from May 2007 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 07th day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.