Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/8/2014

Sakthivel - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Junior Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, Nagapattinam. - Opp.Party(s)

J.Ramesh Kumar

31 Oct 2014

ORDER

Date of Filing      : 04.03.2014

                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 31.10.2014

           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., ….  MEMBER I

               Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMER II

 

 

CC. No.08/2014

 

DECIDED ON THIS 31^st  DAY OF OCTOBER  2014.

 

 

               N. Sakthivel

               S/o Natarajan

               Umbalacheri Village,

               Thalaignayaru Union,

   Vedharanyam Taluk,

   Nagapattinam District.                                          …..Complainant

                                                                                                  

                                                                /versus/

                                   

Assistant Executive Engineer,

       Agricultural Engineering Department,

       Agricultural Engineering Office,

       Nagapattinam.                                                         ….. Opposite party

                                   

 

 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 16.10.2014, on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.J.Ramesh Kumar, Counsel for the complainant, the Govt. Pleader, Counsel for the opposite party  and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

      ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

This  complaint  is  filed  by  the  complainant  u/s  12  of  the  Consumer Protection  Act 1986.

                                    2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that on 03.09.2012 he paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the opposite  party towards charges of ploughing his lands by the tractor for samba paddy cultivation and receipt is also given by the opposite party.  But despite the repeated request made in person by the complainant, the opposite party has failed to send the tractor to plough his lands and inconsequence of the delay caused by the opposite party,  the complainant could not raise paddy cultivation for that period.  For the application sent by the complainant to the opposite party seeking particulars of ploughing his land, there was no response from him.  Hence he issued a lawyer’s notice on 20.11.2013 for which the opposite party has sent a reply with false averments.  The complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite party to pay the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation for the loss incurred by him in that period and to repay the sum of Rs.1,500/- the ploughing charges paid by him with interest and to grant such and other reliefs as this Forum may deem fit.

                        3. The gist of the written version filed by the opposite party is that it is true that the complainant paid the sum of Rs.1,500/- on 03.09.2012 as an advance amount for ploughing his land with tractor for samba paddy cultivation and receipt is given therefor.  But there is no failure on the part of the opposite party to send the tractor for ploughing the land of the complainant.  When the tractor driver  approached the complainant for ploughing his land after carrying out the ploughing work with  other lands on the seniority basis, the ploughing could not be carried in the complainant’s land as there was rainwater was stagnating in the field on that day and the complainant also told him that the ploughing can be carried out on another day and hence the tractor driver could go back to his office.  Then on 08.10.2012 when the said tractor driver contacted the complainant over phone,    the latter told him that as there was water  stagnating  in his filed owing to the heavy rain the ploughing could not be carried out and therefore he can come on another day  which he would fix and inform to him.  Therefore there is no lapses or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The ploughing charges of Rs.1,500/-paid by the complainant is remitted in the Government Account and the complainant can get it back on giving an application to claim it or he can avail it for ploughing work on subsequent year.  Further it is utterly false to allege that the complainant could not raise paddy cultivation at all during that period . In fact the complainant has been paid Rs.72,150/- by the Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank, Thalaignayaru, by way of relief fund to the riots at the Cauvery Delta Area.  The said receipt of relief fund by the complainant is wantonly suppressed by him.  The complainant is therefore not entitled to claim any compensation from the opposite party who is not at all responsible for the complainant’s failure to avail the tractor for ploughing his lands. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                        4. The complainant filed his proof affidavit in proof of his claim in the complaint reiterating all the averments made therein and has filed 8 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A8.  The opposite party has filed his proof affidavit in support of his defence and has filed 5 documents which are marked as Exhibits B1 to B5.  Written arguments has been filed by both the sides.

5. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what?

6. Point 1: The main grevence of the complainant is that the opposite party has failed to send the tractor for ploughing his lands for the samba paddy cultivation in time  despite  his payment of  an advance of Rs.1,500/- on  03.09.2012 and because of the deficiency of service of the opposite party , he could not raise paddy cultivation in that season 2012-2013 and has incurred heavy loss of income and therefore the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- and to repay the advance amount of Rs.1,500/-  paid by him with interest and to  grant such and other reliefs as this Forum would deem fit. The defence taken by the opposite party is that the complainant alone was not utilizing the tractor for ploughing purpose.  When the tractor driver approached the complainant for ploughing his land as there was heavy rain and water was stagnating in that field, ploughting could not be done and when the complainant was contacted by the driver  over phone on 08.10.2012,  the latter informed him that there was water still stagnating in the field and ploughing could not be done at that time and he undertook to inform himself for the utility of the tractor.  The complainant had also cultivated paddy during the season and had not incurred loss of income, that he has also received a sum of Rs.72,150/- through the Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society, Thalaignayaru, under the flood relief scheme of the Government, as well as by way of Insurance.  Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant did not incurr loss at all. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                        7. Exhibit A1 is the receipt for payment of Rs.1,500/- towards advance for the ploughing charges paid by the complainant to the opposite party.  Exhibit A2 is the letter sent to the Public Information Officer and the Director, Office of the Agricultural Department, Vedharanyam, to furnish him the necessary information sought by the complainant.  Exhibit A4 is the letter sent by the Consumer Research Education Action Training Empowerment representing the complainant to the opposite party.  Exhibit A5 is the another letter sent by the Consumer Research  Education Action Training Empowerment to the District Collector, Nagapattinam with copy of the letter sent by the opposite party.  Exhibit A6 is the office copy of the notice sent by the complainant through his Lawyer to the opposite party.  Exhibit A7 is the postal acknowledgement card of the opposite party.  Exhibit A8 is the reply given by the opposite party to the complainant’s lawyer.  The opposite party has not taken any care to send any reply to the said Exhibits A2 and A4 and also the letter of the opposite party annexed in Exhibit A5.  On the side of the opposite party Exhibit B1 is the letter  sent by the opposite party to the complainant, wherein it is informed that his advance amount of Rs.1,500/- is remitted in the Government Treasury and he can appropriate it for his future ploughing of his field. Exhibit B2 is the copy of the Exhibit A8, the letter sent to the complainant’s advocate. Exhibit B3 is the Trip Sheet for the usage of the tractor by the opposite party.  Exhibit B4 is the letter sent by the Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society, Thalaignayaru.  in which its stated that the complainant has received a sum of Rs.72,150/- towards insurance amount and flood relief fund granted by the government.  Exhibit B5 is the photographs showing the inspection of the complainant’s field by the opposite party.

                        8. The deficiency of service alleged by the complainant on the part of the opposite party is that the latter failed to provide the tractor for ploughing the complainant’s land in time despite his repeated requests made in person. The contention of the opposite party is that his tractor driver Thiru.K.Karunanidhi, approached the complainant on 06.10.2012 to plough his land but ploughing could not be carried out as there was rain causing the water stagnating in the field, and he had to return back.  On 08.10.2012 when he contacted the complainant over phone in that regard the complainant informed him that there was still water stagnating in the field and he would inform him latter as  and when the field was found to be fit for ploughting.  There is no concrete evidence in support of the opposite party’s contention that his tractor driver contacted the complainant on 06.10.2012  in person and over phone on 08.10.2012. No proof affidavit of the said driver is filed before this Forum.

                        9. Further the tractor driver being the official working under the opposite party ought to have maintained records to show that he met the complainant on 06.10.2012 for ploughing the field with the tractor . No documentary evidence is filed by the opposite party in proof of  his allegation that the tractor driver went to the complainant’s field on 06.10.2012.  While the ploughing ought to have been carried out on seniority basis of the riots who have paid  the advance amount and registered the name for the ploughing,  the tractor driver or the opposite party should have obtained an endorsement in writing from the complainant to substantiate their version that the field could not be ploughed on 06.10.2012, when the complainant’s turn has reached its seniority. The opposite party with due diligence ought to have sent a letter in writing to the complainant calling up on him to utilize the tractor for ploughing within the period to be fixed or to get back his advance amount of Rs.1,500/- paid by him in that regard. Therefore the in the absence of any concrete evidence on the part of the opposite party to prove their readiness to plough  the field of the complainant, when his due turn reached the complainant’s contention that the opposite party has failed to provide the tractor for ploughing of his filed in time is to be believed.

                        10.Point 2: The complainant claims  compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four lakhs and fifty thousand only) on the ground that he could not cultivate the paddy during that season because of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in providing the tractor for ploughing his land.  But the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant raised paddy during that the season and also obtained relief fund the sum of Rs.72,150/- (Rupees seventy two thousand one hundred and fifty only) towards flood relief fund and under the crops Insurance Scheme and contented that the complainant has totally suppressed the fact of his raising paddy cultivation during that the season and getting income there upon. The complainant has filed his proof affidavit of one Thiru.Ramalingam S/o. Nadarajan the adjoining land owner of the complainant, who has affirmed that the complainant had not raised paddy in that season and the land remained barren in that year. The affidavit of the said witness could not be relied upon  in view of Exhibit B4, the documentary evidence filed by the opposite party in  proof  of cultivation of the crops by the complainant.  Therefore the allegation of loss incurred by the complainant because of the deficiency of service of the opposite party is not at all proved. Further it is also neither probable nor believable that the complainant whose source of livelihood is agriculture only ,has failed to plough the  lands by other means and raise paddy cultivation only because of the failure on the part of the opposite party to provide tractor for the utility of the complainant in time.  The conduct of the opposite party in not giving any reply to the representations made by the complainant  through the Consumer Organization  under Exhibit A4 and A5 is also not appreciable.

                        11. In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for the deficiency of service on his part and to repay the sum of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand and five hundred only), the advance amount paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 03.09.2012, the date of payment till its realization within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the said compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- shall also carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.  The opposite party is further directed to pay the sum of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of this litigation within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall  also carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till date of its realization.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this 31^st  day of  October 2014.

 

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                   PRESIDEN

 

 

List of documents filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt.03.09.2012: Copy of the Receipt for payment of Rs.1500/-  by the

   complainant given by the opposite party.

Ex.A2/Dt. Jan 2013: The Xerox copy of the letter sent to the Public Information Officer

  and Director Agricultural Department, Chennai with copy to the

  District Collector, Nagapattinam under Right To Information Act

 Ex.A3/Dt.27.10.2012: The Xerox copy of the letter addressed to the Assistant Director

     the Agricultural Department, Vedharanyam.

Ex.A4/Dt.21.08.2013: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Consumer Research

   Education Action Training Empowerment to the opposite party.

Ex.A5/Dt.24.06.2013: The Xerox copy of the another letter sent by the Consumer

    Research Education Action Training Empowerment to the District

     Collector, Nagapattinam.

Ex.A6/Dt.20.11.2013: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the  complainant’s Advocate

    to the opposite party.

Ex.A7/Dt.25.11.2013: The acknowledgment card received by the opposite party.

Ex.A8/Dt.27.12.2013: The Xerox copy of the reply notice sent by the opposite party to

               the complainant’s Advocate.

 

List of documents filed by the Opposite party

 

Ex.B1/Dt.31.07.2013: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the opposite party to

                the complainant’s Advocate.

Ex.B2/Dt.27.12.2013: The office copy of the letter sent by the opposite party to

                the complainant’s Advocate.

 Ex.B3/Dt.22.07.2014: The Xerox copy of the Trip Sheet given by the opposite party.

               

Ex.B4/Dt.22.03.2014: The Xerox copy of the letter given  by the Secretary of the

    Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Opposite party.

Ex.B5/Dt.   Nil           : The Xerox copy of the photo of the opposite party inspecting the

   complainant’s land.

  

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                       PRESIDENT