D.O.F:17/08/2019

                                                                                                 D.O.O:28/01/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.161/2019

Dated this, the  28^th day of January 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Aboobacker aged 36 years

S/o. Hassainer

“Bismilla Manzil”

Kutyalam House, P.O Kodyamme – 671321      : Complainant

Manjeshwara Taluk, Kasaragod District

(Adv: K. Rama Pattali)

                                                            And

The Secretary

Kasaragod Rural Development Society              : Opposite Party

Kolichal, P.O Kolichal

Kasaragod District.

(Adv: Sudhir.M)

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER

     The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an unemployed youth searching for a job.  On 25.10.2018 Opposite Party arranged a study class in Kumbala Krishi Bhavan for unemployed  youth for doing their on  Horticulture business for their livelihood.  The Opposite Party induced the complainant that only honey business is best for earning easy income without much capital and strain.  The Opposite Party promised the complainant that they will provide materials which are necessary for honey production business.  The Opposite Party informed the complainant that the total price of honey business materials is Rs. 3780/- , and the materials will be disbursed within a week of payment.  Bonafidely believing this complainant has paid Rs. 3780/- for 8 items of materials on 31/10/2018 and Opposite Party issued receipt for the same.  But Opposite Party has failed to supply the materials  after one week of payment as agreed earlier.  There after Opposite Party evaded from the queries of the complainant and finally on 16/08/2019 when the complainant approached Opposite Party for the collection of materials Opposite Party evaded the complaint by saying ‘no stock’ and behaved  rudely and abused the complaint without any reason.  The act of Opposite Party caused heavy mental and physical strain and financial loss to the complaint.  Due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party complainant is seeking refund of the price of the materials that is Rs. 3780/- with 9% interest till payment along with 50,000/- as damages and 10,000/- as cost.

            Advocate Sudhir.M  filed vakalath and version for Opposite Party.  Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined by Opposite Party as Pw1.  The document is marked as Ext A1, which is the cash payment receipt.  Thereafter Opposite Party filed IA 71/2021 reopen the evidence of Opposite Party, the Opposite Party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination but not adduced evidence. 

   The main questions raised for consideration are :-

1. Whether there is commercial purpose on the part of the complainant?
2. Whether there is deficiency service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party?
3. Whether the complainant for entitled for the relief?
4. If so what is the relief?

For convenience issues No:1 to 3 can be discussed together

    The Complainant has produced Ext A1 receipt.  Which shows that complainant has paid Rs. 3780/- for the price of materials for honey business.  Opposite Party raised a contention of commercial purpose which is not sustainable.  A mobile phone operators income is very meager.  It is insufficient to maintain a family.    As we know honeybee business will not bring huge profit.  The complainant filed affidavit stating that he is an unemployed youth.  We rely upon the affidavit filed by the complainant hence commercial purpose is not sustainable.  It is for eking out his lively hood.

           Ext A1 proves that Opposite Party received Rs. 3780/- from the complainant as the cost of materials for honey production business. Opposite Party is liable to supply the necessary materials in time as per the promise. Even though complainant had undergone training on honey production business he cannot start the business and earn income from it due to the delay on the part of Opposite Party in supplying the materials.  Complainant in his affidavit alleges that Opposite Party behaved in a rude manner to him when he approached Opposite Party for collection of materials on 16/08/2019.  This amounts deficiency in service. Opposite Party is bound to answer the queries of the complainant as he induced him to join this project and collected price of materials.  There is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Due to the deficincy in service on the part of Opposite Party complainant suffered loss and mental and physical strain.  Opposite Party is liable to compensate the loss and agony undergone by the complainant. 

     We carefully perused affidavit of the complainant version and documents produced by both parties.  We are of the view that Opposite Party is liable to refund Rs. 3780/- with compensation and cost.

         In the result, therefore complaint is partly allowed directing Opposite Party to refund the Rs. 3780/- with 9% interest from 31/10/2018 till disbursement along with 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation along with Rs. 3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) cost.

     The time for compliance is 30 days from the receipt of copy of this judgement.

Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Exhibit   

A1- Receipt

Witness Examined

Aboobacker.H

      Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/