D.O.F. 31.11.2009 D.O.O. 15.03.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011. C.C.No.318/2009 1. A.T.C. Abdurahiman, S/o. Abdulla, ‘P.M. House’, P.O. Thavam, Kannur 2. P.M. Khadeeja, : Complainants W/o. A.T.C. Abdurahiman, ‘P.M. House’, P.O. Thavam, Kannur (Rep. by Adv. P.K. Anwar) The Secretary, Cherukunnu Service Co-op. Bank Limited, No.LL(114) : Opposite Party Kovvapram, P.O. Cherukunnu, Kannur (Rep. by Adv. E.K. Ramakrishnan) O R D E R Sri. K. Gopalan, President. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to refund an amount of ` 360 excess amount received by opposite party and ` 1,000 as compensation along with ` 3,000 as cost of this litigation. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows : Complainant is an agriculturist. As per People’s Plan-2010, Kerala Government declared half of the amount as subsidy for purchasing bio-fertilizer for those farmers who are within the jurisdiction of Cherukunnu Gramapanchayath. Accordingly on 10.10.2009 as per the permit No. 346 1st complainant was allowed ` 1,100 and by permit No.350/09-10 ` 850 to the 2nd complainant by Agricultural Officer, Cherukunnu. It was to purchase 180 Kg bio-fertilizer worth of ` 3,960. The distribution of fertilizer was entrusted to the above opposite party. Complainant presented the permit for ` 1,980 with ready to pay the balance amount before the opposite party. Opposite party was very much adamant and compulsorily demanded ` 2,340. Opposite party received ` 360 excess from the complainant illegally and unauthorisedly. When he questioned this he was insulted in front of other customers. Complainant sent legal notice. But they replied with untrue facts. They have replied that the price of 180 Kg bio-fertilizer is ` 4,320 and not ` 3,860. Opposite party unjustifiably realize an amount of ` 360 and behaved arrogantly insulting the complainant in front of others. Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the main allegation of the complainant. Brief facts of the case of opposite party is as follows : It is true that 180 Kg bio-fertilizer was given to complainant at subsidy rate allotted by Cherukunnu Gramapanchayath. But it is false and baseless to say that they have realized ` 2,340 instead of ` 1,980 unjustifiably. The allegation that the opposite party realized ` 360 excess and ridiculed the complainant in front of others by 1st opposite party when it was questioned etc and he was subject to mental pain and sufferings are not true and correct. The legal notice was replied properly. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As per 2009-10 People’s Plan of Cherukunnu Gramapanchayath decided to provide 1 Kg bio-fertilizer for each coconut tree at subsidy rate of ` 7. Accordingly they bought bio-fertilizer as demanded by Krishi Bhavan and distributed it for the price deducting subsidy. Opposite party sold 1 Kg G.N. oil cake for ` 24 which includes purchase price cost of loading and unloading and stationery. Opposite party received only Rs.11 as subsidy. Balance price `13 received from the farmers who came with the permit and receipt issued ` 2340 realised from the complainant for 180 Kg G.N oil cake only in accordance with the above explained arrangements. Opposite party did not realize any amount illegally or unjustifiably. There was no or any sort of incident that caused defamation or humiliation to complainant by the employees of opposite party. Opposite party is merely an agency distributing the fertilizer. If complainant deserving to get any benefit of subsidy complainant has to approach Panchayath or Krishi Bhavan for the remedy. This opposite party has nothing to do with deciding subsidy rate. This opposite party is not liable for any relief sought by the complainant. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. (1) Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed in (3) Relief and cost? The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and documentary evidence Ext.A1 to A8 and B1 and B2. Issues 1 to 3 : Admittedly complainant purchased the bio-fertilizer at subsidy rate from opposite party as per the permit issued by Krishi Bhavan. Ext.A1 reveals that Krishi Bhavan issued permit No.346/2009-10 in the name of AIC Abdurahiman for purchasing bio-fertilizer for 100 Kg G.N. oil cake. It also shows that ` 1100 is allotted as subsidy amount. So also permit No.350/2009-10 issued in the name of Khadeeja P.M., the wife of the complainant shown an amount of ` 880 is allotted for purchase of 80 Kg oil cake. Ext.A3 is the receipt of 100 Kg G.N. oil cake which complainant paid ` 1,300 after adjusting the ` 1,100 as the allotment amount of subsidy. Ext.A4 is the receipt of purchase of 80 Kg bio-fertilizer in which Khadeeja has paid ` 1,040 after deduction of subsidy amount. The case of the complainant is that permit issued allowing 50% subsidy to complainant and his wife. The value of Kadalappinnakku for 180 Kg was ` 3,960. Deducting the subsidy, price would come only ` 1,980. Opposite party instead insisted complainant to pay ` 2,040 which is an excess amount of ` 360. Complainant sent lawyer notice dated 13.10.2009 since opposite party received an excess amount ` 360 without any legal base. It can be seen that PW2 has given evidence that 50% subsidy has been given to farmers to purchase bio-fertilizer by the Peoples Plan 2009-10. He further deposed as follows. Price of the bio-fertilizer determined in accordance with the decision of purchase committee. The rate implemented is price accepted by Panchayath Board and recognized by DPC. 50% of this recognized price would be given as subsidy to farmers. DW2 also deposed that there is no revised proceedings to change the amount fixed in accordance with the change in market price. Change in price should be accepted by Purchase Committee, Ext.A1 and A2 clearly shown an amount of subsidy for which the complainant and his wife is entitled for. Ext.A1 and A2 also reveals that the total quantity of bio-fertilizer allotted for the complainant and his wife, but the price is not shown anywhere in Ext.A1 and A2. Price if not mentioned, that only means the eligible amount entitled for the complainant and his wife is sanctioned amount which is specifically shown in Ext.A1 and A2 permits. Ext.A1 and A2 does not mentioned the percentage of amount. The evidence of PW2 reveals that this amount of subsidy is determined basing on the market price then existing. Once it is determined there is no change for the amount in due course even if there is change in market price. Complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the 50% of amount is determined based on the market price at the time when complainant or the permit holders purchase the fertilizer. In other words there is no evidence to show that the complainant is entitled for the half of the amount of the market price at the relevant time of purchase. It has come in evidence that 50% subsidy is determined based on the then market rate at the time when the subsidy was fixed. There is no evidence to show how to deal with the change in price time to time. The market price may be changed after fixing the subsidy amount. It need not necessarily be the same when the holders are purchasing the fertilizer. It is clear that subsidy amount determined on the basis of the then existing market price is not going to be changed time to time but the possibility of market price of fertilizer may change at any time thereafter. That is the reason why the amount of subsidy is fixed instead of the percentage in the permit. Hence farmers are entitled for the amount which is specifically shown in the permit. If the amount has not been specifically shown in the permit the complainant could claim for 50% of the amount as subsidy. In the matter in hand the subsidy amount is fixed and specifically written instead of telling percentage, which only means that the holders are entitled for the amount shown in the permit and not for the half of the amount that he had actually paid. The subject matter of the fluctuation of price in the market has not been considered in the permit while entering exact amount subsidy. It is not the percentage but an exact amount that is written in permit. It can be seen that in the present case a definite amount is allotted as subsidy. There is no mention of any change of volume of amount at any point of time in future. What is happened here is, the price that was existing, at a given time has been taken as such, as the basis for determining the 50% of the amount. There ends the question of 50% because thereafter the holders are entitled only for the specified amount ie shown in the permit, which was once fixed on the basis of the market value. Analysis of the available evidence shows that complainant and his wife is entitled only for the amount specifically written on the permit Ext.A1 and A2 ie an amount determined by the purchase committies considering the then existing market price. Complainant is not entitled for any amount over and above the amount determined by the purchase committee. Once the percentage of amount is determined it is not the percentage to be considered thereafter but only the amount fixed by the purchase committee. If any further change in the amount wanted to be allowed that would be decided by the Purchase Committee and the opposite party has no role in this. Hence no deficiency in service can be attributed on the shoulders of opposite parties in this given matter. There is no evidence to show that there is any sort of unfair trade practice on the side of the complainant. As per the prevailing arrangement the permit holder is liable to pay the market price after deducting the subsidy amount in the permit. In the light of the above discussion we find that the complainant failed to establish his case. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Thus issues 1 to 3 are found against complainant. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Copy of Permit No.346/09-10 dated 10.10.2009. A2. Copy of Permit No.350/09-10 dated 10.10.2009. A3. Cash receipt from OP. A4. Cash receipt from OP. A5. Copy of the Lawyer notice dated 13.10.2009. A6. Postal receipt dated 14.10.2009. A7. Postal acknowledgement. A8. Reply letter dated 29.10.2009. Exhibits for the opposite party B1. Copy of letter dated 15.06.2009. B2(a) to (d). Bill dated 24.09.2009. Witness examined for the complainant PW1. Complainant No.1 Witness examined for the opposite party DW1. Sethumadhavan K.V. /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
