- Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant is the permanent resident of Mallur village of Nizamsagar Mandal. He is an agriculturist having agricultural lands and cultivating the paddy, and other crops in it. That the government of AP for the welfare of farmers who cultivates the paddy has introduced a scheme and as per the said scheme it has opened the centre at OP for purchasing the paddy from the farmers and fixed a Rate at Rs. 1,110/-per quintal and accordingly complainant supplied the paddy and the OP weighed the same at 162.40 quintals after deducting moisturizing weight and paid Rs. 1,75,824/- only for 158.40 quintals stating that there was less of four quintals due to moisture.
It is alleged that at the time of weighing the paddy after deducting the moisture weight, weighed the paddy and declared it at 162.40 quintals and to that effect issued a token vide No. 406, dt. 14-05-2012 but at the time of payment an amount of Rs. 1,75,824/- was paid for 158.40 quintals only and failed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,440/- for four quintals of paddy. Deducting the moisture weight again at the time of payment is improper, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. When the complainant questioned the OP regarding the less payment but the OP has given an evasive reply and refused to pay the remaining amount for four quintals of paddy. Hence he filed this complaint seeking the directions to the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 4,440/-( Rupees Four thousand four hundred and forty only) with interest @ 24% per annum from 14-05-2012 till the realization and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards damages and compensation for rendering improper and deficient services and costs of the complaint.
2. Opposite Party filed counter stating that at the very out set the relief prayed for by the complainant is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opening of purchase depot of paddy by the government is admitted. It is stated that the complainant who is also a director of their society, sold 162.40 quintals of paddy and as per the rules, after deducting the moisture, the OP calculated the amount for 158.40 quintals and paid Rs. 1,75,824/- @ Rs. 1,110/- per quintal and the complainant received the said amount accepting the rules. The complainant has never objected for deduction of the moisture. The allegations of Para Nos. 3 to 6 of the complaint are denied as false and baseless. The total weight of the paddy brought by the complainant was 162.40quintals. As per the complaint, the complainant admittedly supplied 162.40quintals of paddy and after deduction of moisture for four quintals of paddy the amount of Rs. 1,75,824/- was paid to the complainant. There is no deficient and improper service on the part of OP. As such the complainant is not entitled for any relief. OP prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. During enquiry no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked either on behalf of the complainant or on behalf of the OP.
4. The points for consideration are:
i) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed for?
ii) To what relief?
5. POINT NO. 1 & 2
It is not in dispute that the government of AP for the welfare of the farmers who cultivate the paddy has introduced a scheme and as per the said scheme it has opened the centres for purchasing the paddy from the farmers and fixed a rate at Rs.1,110/- per quintal. It is also not in dispute that the complainant sold 162.40 quintals of paddy at the rate of Rs. 1,110/- per quintal. The allegations of the complainant are that after deducting the moisturise weight at the time of weighing the paddy he supplied 162.40 quintals paddy, but the OP again at the time of payment deducted the value for four quintals of paddy i.e Rs. 4,440/- towards moisturizing paddy and paid an amount of Rs. 1,75,824/-only for 158.40 quintals which is according to the complainant is improper and illegal and against the principles of nature of justice. Further allegations of the complainant that when he questioned the OP regarding the less payment, the OP has given an evasive reply and refused to pay the remaining amount for four quintals and therefore he suffered mental agony due to improper and deficient service on the part of OP. Except these bald allegations made by the complainant there is no evidence on his behalf to substantiate the said allegations. The complainant has not adduced any evidence either by way of filling his affidavit or examining any witnesses. He has failed to prove the allegations made by him against the OP inspite of sufficient and reasonable time granted. In absence any evidence the allegations made by the complainant cannot be gone into by the Forum as the pleadings are not the evidence in view of the decision in Solanki Bharthuji Fataji V/s. National Insurance Co.Ltd.,of Hon’ble Gujrat SCDRC, Ahmedabad, reported in II(1993) CPJ 854 and also in view of the decisions in Fakroudine Adamjee V/s. Yusuff Abdulla of Hon,ble Karnataka SCDRC, Banglore reported II(1993) CPJ 941 and M/s. Konark Television Limited V/s Rakesh Garg of Hon,ble Bihar SCDRC, Patna reported in II(1993) CPJ 972.
Having considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in absence of the evidence on behalf of the complainant and in view of the above decisions we are of the considered opinion that complainant had failed to prove his case. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the complainant.
6. In the result, the complaint is “ DISMISSED”. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 10th day of April 2014.
