BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No.197/2009 Dated: 30..11..2009 Complainant:
R. Ayyappan Nair, Anizham, T.C.51/515, Mankulam Lane, Pappanamcode, Trivandrum.
Opposite party: The Proprietor, M/s. C.R.C Oil Mills (Matha Sudhi Velichanna), Near R.C. Church, Valiyavila, Mudipura, Kulathoor, Uchakada – P.O., Trivandrum.
This O.P having been heard on 23..11..2009, the Forum on 30..11..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The allegations in the complaint are the following: For the last 15 years complainant residing at Vempanattin Vila House, Kollemkode – P.O., K.K. District, Tamil Nadu which consist of coconut farming and the yields are once in 60 days and often sold broken, in two, after removing the coconut water and sold to the opposite party who is the buyer as per the Govt. of India coconut development scheme as per the price per/kg fixed by the government. On 22/2/2009, opposite party has reduced 28kg as if not fully ripe, purposefully to deprive the complainant the benefit of coconut development scheme of the Central Govt and the State Government. The loss amount to Rs.315/-, and again on 26/4/2009 the opposite party has again purposefully reduced 100kg for coconut's water from the total weighed quantity of broken, into two, coconut of 1020.300kg and the remaining was priced at Rs.9.80kg from the prevailing market value of Rs.10.50 as known. The commission of the opposite party has caused a loss of 1764.21 and the total loss works out to, in these two transactions alone, to Rs. 2,075.21/-. The opposite party's weighing baskets are also not even. At times it is 5.84 per basket the reduction, and other times, at the rate of 4.76 and 6.34 etc. and at an irregular manner and thereby denying the benefits accrued to the complainant. On all the occasions the opposite party after weighing mixes with his lot of the coconut and complainant is not able to take it to other buying centres also. Complainant had sent an advocate notice to the opposite party on 11/5/2009 and duly acknowledged by the opposite party on 18/5/2009 and so far no reply or any communication received till this time. Hence this complaint has been necessitated. 2. The notice issued to the opposite party from this Forum returned with endorsement 'Unclaimed' and hence the opposite party was set ex-parte. 3. The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P6. Complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite party. 4. The following issues arise for consideration: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
5. Points (i) & (ii) : The allegation of the complainant is that he had sustained loss due to the unfair trade practice by the opposite party. The complainant alleges that to deprive the complainant the benefits of coconut development scheme the opposite party has reduced the weight of the coconut and on another occasion the opposite party had purposefully reduced 100 kg, from the total weight, towards weight of coconut water and instead of prevailing market value of Rs.10.50 the opposite party had priced only Rs.9.80/-. The opposite party has never turned up to contest the case. The allegations levelled against the opposite party has not been challenged by the opposite party, hence the allegations stand uncontroverted and undisputed.
6. In the above circumstance and taking into consideration the facts and records into consideration, we hereby allow the complaint. The complainant is found entitled for refund of Rs.2,644/- along with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- towards costs. In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,644/- and a compensation of Rs.1,000/- along with costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% till realisation. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of November, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER. C.C.No. 197/2009
APPENDIX
Complainant's witness : NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of postal receipt dated 11/5/09 P2 : Photocopy of list dated 26/4/2009. P3 : " dated 22/2/2009 P4 : " dated 23/12/2008 P5 : " acknowledgment card P6 : Copy of advocate notice dated 5/5/2009
III. Opposite party's witness: : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents: : NIL
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No.197/2009 Dated: 30..11..2009 Complainant:
R. Ayyappan Nair, Anizham, T.C.51/515, Mankulam Lane, Pappanamcode, Trivandrum.
Opposite party: The Proprietor, M/s. C.R.C Oil Mills (Matha Sudhi Velichanna), Near R.C. Church, Valiyavila, Mudipura, Kulathoor, Uchakada – P.O., Trivandrum.
This O.P having been heard on 23..11..2009, the Forum on 30..11..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The allegations in the complaint are the following: For the last 15 years complainant residing at Vempanattin Vila House, Kollemkode – P.O., K.K. District, Tamil Nadu which consist of coconut farming and the yields are once in 60 days and often sold broken, in two, after removing the coconut water and sold to the opposite party who is the buyer as per the Govt. of India coconut development scheme as per the price per/kg fixed by the government. On 22/2/2009, opposite party has reduced 28kg as if not fully ripe, purposefully to deprive the complainant the benefit of coconut development scheme of the Central Govt and the State Government. The loss amount to Rs.315/-, and again on 26/4/2009 the opposite party has again purposefully reduced 100kg for coconut's water from the total weighed quantity of broken, into two, coconut of 1020.300kg and the remaining was priced at Rs.9.80kg from the prevailing market value of Rs.10.50 as known. The commission of the opposite party has caused a loss of 1764.21 and the total loss works out to, in these two transactions alone, to Rs. 2,075.21/-. The opposite party's weighing baskets are also not even. At times it is 5.84 per basket the reduction, and other times, at the rate of 4.76 and 6.34 etc. and at an irregular manner and thereby denying the benefits accrued to the complainant. On all the occasions the opposite party after weighing mixes with his lot of the coconut and complainant is not able to take it to other buying centres also. Complainant had sent an advocate notice to the opposite party on 11/5/2009 and duly acknowledged by the opposite party on 18/5/2009 and so far no reply or any communication received till this time. Hence this complaint has been necessitated. 2. The notice issued to the opposite party from this Forum returned with endorsement 'Unclaimed' and hence the opposite party was set ex-parte. 3. The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P6. Complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite party. 4. The following issues arise for consideration: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
5. Points (i) & (ii) : The allegation of the complainant is that he had sustained loss due to the unfair trade practice by the opposite party. The complainant alleges that to deprive the complainant the benefits of coconut development scheme the opposite party has reduced the weight of the coconut and on another occasion the opposite party had purposefully reduced 100 kg, from the total weight, towards weight of coconut water and instead of prevailing market value of Rs.10.50 the opposite party had priced only Rs.9.80/-. The opposite party has never turned up to contest the case. The allegations levelled against the opposite party has not been challenged by the opposite party, hence the allegations stand uncontroverted and undisputed.
6. In the above circumstance and taking into consideration the facts and records into consideration, we hereby allow the complaint. The complainant is found entitled for refund of Rs.2,644/- along with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- towards costs. In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,644/- and a compensation of Rs.1,000/- along with costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% till realisation. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of November, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER. C.C.No. 197/2009
APPENDIX
Complainant's witness : NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of postal receipt dated 11/5/09 P2 : Photocopy of list dated 26/4/2009. P3 : " dated 22/2/2009 P4 : " dated 23/12/2008 P5 : " acknowledgment card P6 : Copy of advocate notice dated 5/5/2009
III. Opposite party's witness: : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents: : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
