By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- Opposite Party is the proprietor of the Ickara Plant Nursery in Nadavayal. On 08-08-2017 the Complainant had purchased from the nursery of Opposite Party, 540 numbers Sapling known as ‘Quintal Nendhra Vahza’, 50 numbers of ‘Attu Nendhra vazha’ 10 numbers of ‘Swarnamukhi Nendhra’, 3 numbers of Poovan Vahza and 2 numbers of ‘Chenkadhali’ for a consideration of Rs. 15,500/- vide receipt No. 53. At the time of purchase, the Opposite Party had given an assurance that all these saplings are of high quality tissue culture saplings and it will give more yielding. After that the Complainant planted all saplings in his agricultural land and banana bunches were came out in all that plantains. While examining the banana bunches the Complainant realized that all the plantains given by the Opposite Party as Attu Nendhra vazha were not the items offered and that the items supplied as Ponnan Kaya and the other plantains were Robusta. Consequently, the Complainant intimated the matter to the Opposite Party and sent a lawyer notice. But the Opposite Party had not given any reply to the notice of the Complainant. The act of the Opposite Party is unfair trade practice and the Complainant had caused financial loss, time loss, and troubles. Hence the Complainant filed the complaint for getting compensation of Rs. 4,56,100/- from the Opposite Party and cost of the complaint.
3. The Opposite Party entered appearance, filed version and contested the case. The Opposite Party stated that the Complainant had filed the Complaint with ulterior motive to defame the Opposite Party and so it is not sustainable. The Complainant tried to mislead the Commission. The Opposite Party did not plant the plantains that were brought from the Opposite Party’s nursery and all those were planted in some other place other than the plot where the Commissioner inspected. Hence the Opposite Party prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On perusal of the Complaint and documents, the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice happened from the part of
the Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation and what
order as to cost..?
5. Point No. 1 and 2:- For the sake of convenience and brevity points 1 and 2 are considered together.
The Complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A1, A2 and Ext.C1 marked. From the side of the Opposite Party no oral evidence tendered and no documents were marked. The Complainant adduced evidence before the Commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the time of pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. Ext. A1 is the original bill dated 08/08/2017 and Ext. A2 is the lawyer notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. Ext. A1 bill issued by the Opposite Party proves that the Complainant had purchased banana plants from the Opposite Party by paying an amount of Rs. 15,500/-. Ext. A2 is the lawyer notice which shows that Complainant has made repeated complaints and requests to give compensation and settle his dispute. Further, the evidence on affidavit of PW1 reveals that he has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 40,000/- for making the land fit for raising banana crop and Rs.750/- for carriage expenses. The Opposite Party contends that the plants brought from their nursery were planted by the Complainant in a leased agricultural land and the Complainant showed the Commissioner another cultivated land of him. But the Opposite Party failed to prove this contention. At the time of evidence the Opposite Party asked the Complainant whether the banana plants brought from the Opposite Party’s nursery were sold to another person. This question contradicting with the statement of Opposite Party in version. Other contentions of the Opposite Party are of without evidence and hence cannot be considered. Thus we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and thereby liable to compensate for the sufferings of the Complainant. Thus the issues 1 and 2 are answered partly in favour of the Complainant. Order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as litigation costs to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default in payment till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the day of 22nd April 2022.
Date of filing:26.09.2018.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witnesses for the complainant:
PW1. A. Yohanan Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Cash Bill. dt:08.08.2017.
A2. Copy of Lawyer Notice.
C1. Commission Report. dt:12.12.2018.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
