IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday  the 30th   day of  November 17

Filed on 05/11/2016

Present

Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)

in 

C.C.No.356/2016

between

 Complainant:-      Opposite Partie:-

Sri. Mathew.V (Kunjachan), 1. The Proprietor,

Narakathara, K.Hemaletha,

Amichakari Muri, Paddy Harvester,

Champakulam.P.O,                                        Aviyanur.P.O,

Alappuzha. Panrute.T.K,

Caddalore Dist.

Thamilnadu-607 101.

 

O R D E R

SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER) 

 

The Complainant is a farmer by calling.  The complainant ekes out his living on cultivation paddy in his five acre field.  During the recnt season the complainant hired the opposite parties’ reaping machine amongst other for the purpose of his crop harvest.  As per the agreement entered into, the complainant has to pay Rs. 1580/- (one thousand five hundred eighty) to the owner of the reaping machine.  However the opposite parties took longer time (viz.14 hours) than normally required for harvesting 12 load of paddy.  The opposite parties took an excess of six hours for reaping the crop solely for the shortcoming of their own machine.  The harvest was completed belatedly not for the defect of the reaping machine provided by the opposite parties.  Strangely still the opposite parties charged amount of Rs. 9480/- (nine thousand four hundred eighty) for those periods delayed by the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties inflicted injury and loss to the complainant.  The complainant got aggrieved on this approached this Forum for compensation and relief.

 

2. Though the notice was served the opposite parties were not keen on appearing before this Forum to challenge the complainants’ case.  With the result, the opposite parties were set ex-parties.

3..        The complainant filed proof affidavit and the documents Exbt A1& A2 were marked.  As have been already observed, the opposite parties neither turned up nor did contend the complainants’ case.

4. Taking into account the complainants contention the issue that come up before us for consideration are:-

Whether the gadget the complainant hired from the opposite parties had imperfection?

 Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

4.. We meticulously went through the complaint and the materials place on record before us by the complainant.  The complainant case is that the complainant hired harvesting machine from the opposite parties amongst other similar machines.  The complainant specific case is that the machine which was purchased from the opposite parties took longer time than the time taken by other machines.  The complainant specific case is that the machine which was purchased from the opposite parties took longer time than the time taken by 

other machine.  According to the complainant the reaping machine hired from the opposite parties had imperfection, and resultantly the same was unusually slow in its functioning.  With all these contention in mid, on a perusal of the materials available on record before us, we are persuaded to arrive with credence that the complainant case must be probable.  What is more, as we have already observed, the opposite parties neither turned up nor let in any evidence to challenge the complainant case.  In the context of the complainants’ convincing case and in the premise of not disputing the same by the opposite parties, we are of the strong view that the complainants’ case stands well established and merit acceptance.  It goes without saying that the service of the opposite party is deficient.  We need hardly say, the complainant is entitled to relief.  The complainant need not pay the excess amount of Rs.9480/-(nine thousand) to the opposite parties.

 

6. In the result complaint allowed the opposite parties are directed to issue a revised bill to the complainant deducting a total amount of Rs.9480/-(nine thousand four hundred and eighty) from the instant bills. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/-(thousand) to the complainant as cost.    No order as to compensation.

Pronounce in open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2017.

 

 

  Sd/-Sri. Antony  Xavier (Member)     

     Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President)            

    Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)

     

 

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

 

Ext.A1 - Bill dated 23-10-2016.

Ext.A2 - Bill dated 22-10-2016.

Evidence of the opposite partie:-  Nil

 

 

  // True Copy //                               

 

 By Order                                                                                                   

 

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

 

Typed by:- br/-  

Compared by:-