State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.Pradeepkumar,Through His Power Of ... vs Director R.Pushpakumar,M/S.Indian ... on 8 November, 2023
1
Date of complaint filed : 22.05.2017
Date of orders pronounced : 08.11.2023
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU. S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
C.C.No.35/2017
WEDNESDAY, THE 08th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023.
S.Pradeepkumar,
S/o.Sahadevan,
Karingottu Thodi,
Kadakkavur Post,
Thiruvananthapuram District,
Kerala State-695306. Complainant
(The complainant represented through his
Power of Attorney P.R.Ramasubramania Raja
S/o.P.S.Ramakrishnama Raja
76, Jawahar Maidanam Street,
Rajapalayam-626 117.)
-Vs-
1. M/s.India Hi-Tech Horticulture Solutions (P) Ltd.,
D.No.42C2, First Floor,
Opposite to Balaji Theatre,
Taluk Office Road,
Hosur-635 109,
Krishnagiri District,
Represented Through Its Director R.Pushpakumar.
2. R.Pushpakumar,
Director,
M/s.Indian Horticulture and Food Processing Consultancy,
D.No.42C2, First Floor,
Opposite to Balaji Theatre,
Taluk Office Road,
Hosur-635 109,
Krishnagiri District. Opposite Parties
2
Counsel for Complainant : M/s. K.Kalidass, Advocate.
Counsel for Opposite Parties-1&2 : Ex-parte.
This complaint came before me for final hearing on 11.09.2023 and upon
perusing the material records this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The Facts :
The complainant one Pradeep kumar filed this complaint through his power of Attorney one P.R.Ramasubramaniaraja. The complainant on seeing the advertisement and assurance of the opposite parties who are manufacturer and seller of Polyhouse, being an agriculturist, intended to construct a Polyhouse in his agriculture land and he approached the opposite parties. The opposite parties assured that they will construct four Polyhouse and gave three quotations dated 03.12.2013, 07.05.2014, 08.10.2014. Further the opposite party assured that they will get subsidy from National Horticulture Board for the above said Polyhouse. The complainant paid the quotation amount dated 07.05.2014 to the tune of Rs.28,50,000/- on various dates. The complainant took one year time to complete four Ployhouses. Some materials provided by Ramasubramania raja and he also made some Civil work construction. The opposite parties as promised did not pay cost of building materials provided by the Ramasubramania raja. The opposite parties failed to construct a support Pole for the Polyhouse which has been constructed only by the complainant. The complainant though willing to plant Gherkin(cucumber) but many of the agriculturist informed the complainant that it is 3 not good idea to cultivate that type of cucumber. So, the complainant on the advise of opposite party planted Hi-Tech Capsicum ordinary cucumber, Tomato and long beans in the Polyhouse. But in the month of July-2016 all the Polyhouses was fully damaged by a slight wind. Further the complainant also received a letter from National Horticulture Board on 25.04.2017 stating that he is not eligible for loan subsidy and it was closed.So the complainant alleged that because no efforts taken by the opposite parties, the subsidy was not granted and because of poor materials used to construct the Polyhouse, the polyhouse were damaged. So, the complainant sustained heavy financial loss to the tune of Rs.65 lakhs. Further he is entitled to compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony to the tune of Rs.25,05,000/- and also entitled for cost of Rs.1 lakh. Hence the complaint is filed claiming the above amount.
2. In this case the opposite parties did not file any written statement.
3. Proof affidavit of complainant is filed along with documents Ex.A1 to A10.
4. It is the case of the complainant that he constructed four Polyhouses in his agriculture land. The above construction was made by the opposite parties. It is his further contention that the four Ployhouses were destroyed by a slight wind. The above destruction was due to poor quality of materials used by the opposite parties. Further the complainant alleged that the opposite parties did not take any effort to get the subsidy amount. The above facts were not denied by the opposite parties.
5. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service?
6. Discussions on the Point:
4
In this case the complainant alleged that the opposite parties used poor materials for constructing the Polyhouse and it was all damaged in the year 2016. To prove this facts except the advocate notice marked as Ex.A3 no other documentary evidence produced before this Commission.
7. Moreover, it is the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties constructed the Polyhouse with poor quality materials to prove this fact also no Expert Opinion or Commissioner report obtained and relied on by the complainant. Similarly in Ex.A1 the advertisement says the opposite parties will help to get the subsidy from the Government. But the repudiation letter sent by national Horticulture Board which is marked as Ex.A10 it has been stated that"lapsed as stated in the letter i.e. LOI(Loss of Intimation) time period and change of crop. The proposed claim for subsidy may not be considered and file has been closed". In the above letter in the subject also it has been mentioned as project of Mr.Pradeepkumar for the Hi- Tech cultivation of Gerkins. So, admittedly the complainant did not cultivate Gerkins as per the subsidy's scheme. But he cultivated only ordinary breed of cucumber. So, for not getting subsidy the opposite parties cannot be blamed.
8. In this case, it is true that the opposite parties did not appear and file their objection, but it does not mean that the complainant is entitled to the award amount automatically. It is the duty of the complainant not only to allege deficiency in service and unfair trade practice but also to prove the same to the satisfaction of this Commission. But except payment for construction the complainant failed to prove actual damages muchless any damages to his Polyhouse and he failed to prove the deficiency in service by constructing the Polyhouse using substandard material so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 5
9. The authorities produced by the complainant in 2012(3) MLJ 166 (SCC):
Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986) Section 2(d)(i)- Seeds Act (54 of 1966) Section 10,19 read with 21 Consumer Complaint, 2017 AIAR (Civil) 413(SC) Consumer Protection Act 1986-Sec 24A are not relevant for the purpose of this case. Because, the deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has. on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. In the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service Hence the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
9. In the result,
1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by him corrected and pronounced by us on this the 08th day of November 2023.
Sd/-xxxxxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
6ANNEXURE List of documents marked on the side of the complainant Ex.A1 10.04.2017 Power of Attorney.
Ex.A2 23.09.2013 Opposite party issued Pamlet. Ex.A3 09.03.2017 Advocate notice with postal receipt and acknowledgement card. Ex.A4 03.12.2013 Performa Invoice.
Ex.A5 23.06.2014 Cash receipt.
Ex.A6 07.05.2014 Performa Invoice.
Ex.A7 08.10.2014 Performa Invoice.
Ex.A8 01.12.2015 Complainant's bank balance sheet. Ex.A9 17.05.2017 Complainant's bank balance sheet.
Ex.A10 25.04.2017 NHB Letter.
List of documents marked on the side of opposite parties.
-Nil-
Sd/-xxxxxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
7