State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rakesh Sauhta vs M/S A.S. Murlidharan And Company & Ors on 22 November, 2011
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. ---- CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.02/2010. ORDERS RESERVED ON 20.10.2011 DATE OF DECISION: 22.11.2011. In the matter of: Shri Rakesh Sauhta son of late Shri Kulbhushan Singh, resident of village Dhar, P.O. and Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. Complainant. Versus 1. M/s A.S. Murlidharan and Company, Fruit and Vegetable CommissionAgents, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, Fruit Mandi No.2899/85, Srinavasan Pillai Road, Thanjavur 613 001 (Tamil Nadu) through its partners. 2. Shri A.S. Murlidharan son of Shri Sunder Rajan Naidu, Partner M/s A.S. Murlidharan and Company, Fruit and Vegetable Commission Agents, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, Fruit Mandi No.2899/85, Srinivasan Pillai Road, Thanjavur-613 001 (Tamil Nadu). Resident of 3/962, New Indira Gandhi Nagar, North Kathur, Trichrapillai, Tamil Nadu 620019. Also resident of 3/952, Indira Gandhi Nagar, 3rd Street, North Kathur, Trichyrapillai, Tamil Nadu. 3. Shri A. Sunder Rajan Naidu, Partner M/s A.S. Murlidharan and Company, Fruit and Vegetable Commission Agents, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, Fruit Mandi No.2899/85, Srinivasan Pillai Road, Thanjavur-613 001 (Tamil Nadu). Resident of 3/962, New Indira Gandhi Nagar, North Kathur, Trichrapillai, Tamil Nadu-620019. Also resident of 3/952, Indira Gandhi Nagar, 3rd Street, North Kathur, Trichyrapillai, Tamil Nadu. 4. Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu ( India). Opposite parties. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member.
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
For the Complainant: Mr. Giriraj Chauhan, Advocate, For the Opposite parties. None.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R:
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member.
1.
In the present case Rakesh Sauhta, resident of Village Dhar, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant, had filed complaint against M/S A.S. Murlidharan and Company, Fruit and vegetable Commission Agents, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, Shri A.S. Murlidharan son of Shri A. Sunder Rajan Naidu, partner of M/s A.S. Murlidharan and Company, Fruit and Vegetable Commission Agents, Thanjavur (Tamil Nadu) and Sh. A. Sunder Rajan Naidu, Partner M/s A.S. Murlidharan and Company, Fruit and Vegetable Commission Agents, Thanjavur (Tamil Nadu), hereinafter referred to as opposite parties No.1 to 3 and against the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite party No.4, wherein deficiency of service had been alleged on the part of opposite party No.3 and it was alleged that opposite parties No.1 to 3 are liable for payment of Rs.43,67,000/- to the complainant on account of balance amount of total sale proceeds of apple sale of the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- had been claimed as compensation for harassment, mental agony and damages by way of financial loss on account of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. It had also been prayed in the complaint that opposite party no.4 deserves to be directed to ensure the payment of aforesaid amount/balance sale proceeds of apple to the complainant and a direction had also been sought that opposite parties 1 to 4 be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency of service/unfair trade practice for harassment, mental agony and damages by way of financial loss and a prayer had been made to the effect that the complaint may be allowed and the opposite parties No.1 to 3 may be ordered to pay a sum of Rs.43,67,000/- to the complainant on account of balance sale proceeds of apples alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date the same is due.
Further prayer is to the effect that the opposite parties No.1 to 4 may also be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 lac to the complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment, mental agony, damages by way of financial loss Litigation cost had also been claimed by the complainant against the opposite parties.
2. During the pendency of the complaint, an application under Section 12 (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was moved by the complainant wherein it had been stated that the applicant/complainant and his family members had sent the apple boxes which were grown in their orchard and sent the same to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 for the purpose of sale, as such all other family members of the complainant/applicant are consumers qua opposite party No.3 and particulars of 6 family members who are consumers in relation to the present complaint are given as follows:-
(a) Smt. Shakuntla widow
(b) Sh.
Hem Chand, son of Shri Kulbhushan Singh.
(c) Shri Pradeep Kumar, son All residents of Village Dhar, P.O. and Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. As such, permission had been sought that the complainant may be permitted to file the present complaint on behalf and for the benefit of all the consumers who are the family members of the complainant/applicant. This application was allowed vide order dated 23.2.2010.
3. Facts of the case as they emerge from the complaint file in nutshell are that the complainant is an apple grower and produces apple in his orchard. The orchard is in joint names of the complainant and his family members. The complainant sells the apple in the orchard for the benefit of the family members, as such the present complaint is filed by the complainant only and interest of the complainant is not adverse to that of the other co-owners/family members of the complainant. Further averments in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant also purchases the apple produce from growers for the purpose of sale in the market, so as to earn his livelihood. The complainant produces and sells the apple produce in the market to earn his livelihood.
The complainant sends the apple produce in the market throughout India for the purpose of sale. The apple produce, so sent by the complainant in the market is sent in the name and style of K.S. Sauhta Apples. It was also alleged that the opposite party No.1 is Fruit and Vegetable Commission Agent which deals in the business of sale of apple on Commission basis. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 are the partners of opposite party No.1. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 look after and manage the affairs of the opposite party No.1 and opposite parties No.2 and 3 maintain and regulate the business of opposite party No.1. As such the opposite parties No.2 and 3 are liable for the liability owing by opposite party No.1 arising out of the business transaction with the opposite party No.1. Other averments in the complaint are to the effect that the apples so sent by the complainant is sold in the market by opposite parties No.1 and 2 as partners of opposite party No.1 and on the sale of produce of the apples, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 charge the commission from the growers. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 also charge the commission on the sale of apple produce from the complainant. As such the opposite parties No.1 to 3 were rendering the service of sale of apple produce for valuable consideration as the opposite parties No.1 to 3 were charging for the service which is the commission on the gross sale of apple produce. It is also the case of the complainant that the complainant and his family members used to sell apple produce in the market throughout India and the apple boxes so sent by the complainant and his family members have the marka i.e. name and style of orchard and other particulars printed on the apple boxes or sticker is fixed on the apple boxes. It was also pleaded that the opposite parties No.2 and 3 who are partners of opposite party No.1 contacted telephonically the complainant and told the complainant that at Thanjavur the complainant will get the rate of Rs.2,000/- per apple box. Since the complainant deals in produce and sale of apples for so many years he was not convinced with the offer of the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and asked the opposite parties No.2 and 3 to give this undertaking/ assurance, of rate of Rs.2,000/- per apple box in writing. The opposite party No.2 for and on behalf of himself and on behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 3 gave undertaking/assurance/guarantee/promise to the complainant to sell one apple box at the minimum rate of Rs.1600/- to Rs.2,000/-. The true copy of the letter written by opposite party No.2 to the complainant is Annexure C.1. The complainant apprised all other family members i.e. his mother Smt. Shakuntla, brothers S/Sh. Hem Raj and Pradeep Kumar about the letter so written by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant about the market at Thanjavur.
Since the apples so produced by the complainant and his family members is managed and sold by the complainant for the benefit of all the family members and on behalf of all the family members, as such the family members had consented for the same and had asked the complainant to do the best in relation to the best sale of the apples whatsoever the complainant deems fit.
4. Other averments in the complaint were to the effect that the opposite parties No.2 and 3 were in regular contact of the complainant and allured and persuaded the complainant to send the apple boxes to them for sale and the opposite parties No.2 and 3 promised/assured the complainant that the apple of first picking will be sold @ minimum Rs.2,000/- per apple box. It is submitted that on an average apple plucking is completed in three or four pickings and the apple of first picking is the apple of best quality since the apple of first picking is that of apple which has complete colour, uniform shape etc. and as such acting bonafide on the assurance, undertaking, guarantee and promise given by the opposite parties No.2 and 3 in writing as well as verbally, complainant and his family members first of all arranged for sending of apple boxes to the opposite party No.1 as it is not possible to send the apple consignment from the place of complainant to the place of opposite parties. Since the complainant had sent a considerable number of apple boxes in the market and the complainant made arrangement through Link Roadways SCF 289, Grain Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh to send the consignments to opposite parties No.1 to 3 as the Link Roadway is transporter.
5. Complainant had averred in the complaint that he used to send his apple boxes from his place i.e. Jubbal to Chandigarh and further from Chandigarh the apple boxes were transported to Thanjavaur to the opposite party No.1 and first consignment of 633 apple boxes was sent by the complainant. The first consignment was sent from Jubbal on 23.8.2009 and from Chandigarh the same was sent to the opposite party No.1 on 25.8.2009 which was sent in the vehicle No.RJ 14 GA 2588 to the opposite party No.1. Copies of G.Rs of the apple boxes sent from Jubbal to Chandigarh is annexed with the complaint as Annexures C.2 to C.8. The consignments were sent from Jubbal to Chandigarh by the complainant on self i.e. the consignee is the complainant himself. The same is for the reason that the consignments so sent on self can be easily transported from Chandigarh to Thanjavur through any of the Transport Company from where the goods vehicle is available to carry/transport the apple consignment from Chandigarh to Thanjavur. The Link Roadways SCF-289, Sector 26, Chandigarh sent on 25.8.2009 and G.R. of the same is annexed with the complaint as Annexure C.9. This apple consignment reached at Thanjavur and were received and sold by the opposite parties No.1 to 3.
6. Thereafter, the second consignment of 682 apple boxes was sent by the complainant from Dhar, Jubbal to opposite parties No.1 to 3. Some G.Rs of the apple consignments carrying the apple boxes from Jubbal to Chandigarh on self are annexed with the complaint as Annexures C.10 to C.15. The apple consignments were sent through G.R. on self for the same reason that from Jubbal Transport Company vehicle is available for consignment to be transported further to Thanjavur at the earliest possible. This consignment of 682 apple boxes were also sent through Link Roadways Chandigarh on 28.8.2009 in the vehicle No. HR-69-2809. The G.R. of Link Roadways dated 28.8.2009 is annexed with the complaint as Annexure C.16.
7. Third consignment of 600 apple boxes was sent by the complainant from Jubbal to Chandigarh which was sent on 29.8.2009. The GR of the same carrying the apple boxes from Jubbal to Chandigarh on self for the reason of availability of transport vehicle is annexed with the complaint as Annexures C.17 to C.23 which was further got sent by the complainant through Link Roadways, Chandigarh on 30.8.2009 in the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 28AC-7321 to the opposite parties No.1 to 3. Copy of the G.R. of Link Roadways, dated 30.8.2009 is annexed with the complaint as Annexure C.24.
8. The fourth consignment of 643 apple boxes (though the apple boxes were sent 649 but these boxes were found short) was sent/transported by the complainant from Jubbal to Chandigarh and the G.Rs. of the same are annexed with the complaint as Annexures C.25 to C.29 which was sent on 29.8.2009 and the same were got sent from Chandigarh to Thanjavur on 31.8.2009 in vehicle No. TN 29AY-6979 (in the notice wrongly mentioned as TN 29AY-6929). Copy of G.R. of Link Roadways is annexed with the complaint as Annexure C.30. Thereafter fifth consignment of 643 apple boxes were transported/sent by the complainant from Jubbal to Chandigarh on self which was sent/transported from Jubbal on 2.9.2009. Some of the G.Rs of the same are annexed with the complaint as Annexures C.31 to C.35.
This consignment of 643 apple boxes was further transported by the Link Roadways from Chandigarh to Thanjavur in vehicle No. TN 28AA 7273.
Copy of the G.R. is annexed with the complaint as Annexure C.36.
9. Hence, as per averments made in the complaint, the complainant had sent 3202 apple boxes to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 from time to time, details of which have been submitted hereinabove. The writing of the Link Roadways to this effect is annexed with this complaint as Annexure C.37. It was also pleaded that in the meantime the complainant received the letter from the opposite party No.2 written on behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 3. Complainant had also averred in the complaint that the complainant was in constant touch with the opposite parties No.2 & 3 and the complainant time and again kept on enquiring about the rate and to ensure about the rate which was given by the opposite parties No.2 and 3 to the complainant which opposite party No.2 has undertaken and guaranteed vide letter dated 1.8.2009 and the opposite parties No.2 and 3 acting for themselves and on behalf of the opposite party No.1 always assured the complainant to get the rate of Rs.2,000/- per apple box. In the meantime, the complainant received the letter dated 4.9.2009 wrongly written as 4.4.2009 and the guarantee of best rate was again reiterated. Copy of this letter is annexed with the complaint as Annexure C.39 and the complainant had also pleaded in the complaint that after he had dispatched the above mentioned apple boxes to the opposite parties No.1 to 3, the complainant had intimated the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and it was pleaded that after satisfying themselves about the dispatch of consignment by the complainant the opposite parties No.2 and 3 stopped attending the phone calls of the complainant despite the best efforts on the part of the complainant to contact the opposite parties No.2 and
3. The complainant wanted to know about the arrival of consignment and the rate of apple boxes but the opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not attend the calls of the complainant. It seems that the opposite parties No.2 and 3 did it deliberately and intentionally since the opposite parties No.2 and 3 were assured that the complainant had already sent the apple boxes to them and some consignments have reached and some are on the way. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 received the 3202 apple boxes sent by the complainant.
Case of the complainant was also to the effect that on 3rd and 4th September, 2009, the opposite party No.2 could be contacted by the complainant and the complainant asked about the arrival of the consignment of apple boxes and further the rate on which the apple boxes of the complainant were sold, upon which the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that some of the consignments have been received. It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite party No.2 did not disclose the rate to the complainant and assured the complainant about the disclosure of the rate within few hours, but thereafter the opposite party No.2 never disclosed the rate even till today. Thereafter the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 started making the payment to the complainant though on-line banking and it was also stated that it is pertinent to mention that despite starting making the payment, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 did not disclose the rate of apple boxes to the complainant.
The complainant had also alleged in the complaint the opposite parties No.1 to 3 started making the payment when the complainant talked to them last time. After that the complainant kept on talking to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 enquiring about the rate but the opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not disclose the rate, however, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 told the complainant that all consignments have been received by them at Thanjavur. The complainant tried his level best to know/enquire about the rate but the opposite parties did not disclose anything.
10. The complainant had also alleged in the complaint that the opposite parties No.1 to 3 made last payment through on-line banking to the complainant on 16.9.2009.
The opposite parties No.2 and 3 again stopped attending the phone of the complainant after 16.9.2009 and did not make any other payment to the complainant. The complainant in total has received a sum of Rs.15,25,000/- from the opposite parties No.1 to 3. Hence, as per averments in the complaint, the complainant had sent 3202 apple boxes to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 and total sale of 3202 apple boxes at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per box comes to Rs.64,04,000/- which is the rate which the opposite parties No.1 to 3 had promised to pay to the complainant.
Hence, as per averments in the complaint, the complainant is entitled to receive the amount from opposite parties No.1 to 3 @ Rs.2,000/- per apple box which works out to Rs.64,04,000/- out of which the complainant has received the sum of Rs.15,24,000/- as such the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.43,67,000/- from the opposite parties No.1 to 3 and the opposite parties No.1 to 3 are liable to make this payment to the complainant.
Hence, deficiency of service had been alleged on the part of the opposite parties. As such, present complaint has been filed against the opposite parties for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice wherein direction had been sought to the effect that the opposite parties No.1 to 3 may be ordered to pay a sum of Rs.43,67,000/- to the complainant on account of balance sale proceeds of apples alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date the same is due. The opposite parties No.1 to 4 may also be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 lac to the complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment, mental agony, damages by way of financial loss. In the present case it appears from the record that the opposite party No.1 had been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.4.2010 since the period of more than 30 days had expired and the registered AD of opposite party No.1 had not been received either serve or unserved, as such deemed service had been presumed under Section 28A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and since no one appeared on behalf of the opposite parties No.1, as such he was proceeded ex-parte, however notices sent to opposite parties No.2 & 3 have been received back with the postal endorsement refused and as such they are also deemed to have been served and were proceeded ex-parte and no version to the complaint was filed by the opposite parties No.1 to 3.
11. However, opposite party No.4 had filed its version before this Commission wherein the plea of the opposite party No.4 was to the effect that since the Thanjavur Market Committee had been established under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1987. The Thanjavur Market Committee has provided facilities for the marketing of Agricultural produces such as Paddy, Groundnut, Cocoanut, Blackgram, Greengram, Redgram, Tobacco, Cashewnut, Maize, Gingelly, Chillies, Cotton and Sugar-cane-jaggery which are all notified under Section 3 of the said Act. It is well known fact that the Thanjavur District is a Cauvery delta region for there is no chance to cultivate apple.
Therefore apple has not been notified in Thanjavur District under Section 3 Notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu and it was also pleaded that Thanjavur Market Committee could not exercise control over the purchase and sale of apple within the notified area of Thanjavur District and the Secretary, Thanjavur Market Committee had been wrongly impleaded as a party in the complaint and prayer had been made for discharging the opposite party No.4 from the array of the parties in the complaint and appropriate order as deemed fit in the interest of justice be made.
12. Brief resume of evidence led by the complainant in the present case in nutshell is that the complainant Rakesh Sauhta in support of his case has filed his own affidavit and placed reliance upon a number of documents, Annexures C.1 to C,.89, which are, copy of letter written by opposite party No.2 to the complainant dated 1.8.2009 (Annexure C.1), copies of G.Rs of apple boxes sent from Jubbal to Chandigarh (Annexures C.2 to Annexure C.8), copy of G.R. of Link Roadways SCF 289, Sector 26, Chandigarh for the consignment sent on 25.8.2009 (Annexure C.9), copies of G.Rs of the 2nd apple consignment sent from Jubbal to Chandigarh (Annexures C.10 to Annexure C.15), copy of G.R. of Link Roadways, dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure C.16), copies of G.Rs. of the 3rd consignment sent from Jubbal to Chandigarh (Annexures C.17 to C.23), copy of G.R. of 3rd consignment sent through Link Roadways, dated 30.8.3009 (Annexure C.24), copies of G.Rs of 4th apple consignment sent from Jubbal to Chandigarh (Annexures C.25 to C.29), copy of G.R. of 4th apple consignment sent from Chandigarh to Thanjavur by Link Roadways( Annexure C.30), copies of G.Rs of 5th apple consignment sent from Jubbal to Chandigarh (Annexures C.31 to C.35), copy of G.R. of 5th apple consignment sent from Chandigarh to Thanjavur by Link Roadways (Annexure C.36), copy of writing of the Link Roadways (Annexure C.37), copy of letter dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure C.39), copy of acknowledgements (Annexures C.40 to C.45), copy of notice, dated 23.10.2006 sent through registered AD and UPC on 6.11.2009 (Annexure C.46), copy of reply to notice dated 23.10.2006 sent by opposite party No.4 (Annexure C.48), copy of sale Parcha, dated 5.9.2009 sent by opposite parties No.1 to 3 ( Annexure C.49), copies of sale Parchas, dated 7.9.2009, 10.9.2009 sent by opposite parties No.1 to 3 (Annexures C.50 to C.51), copies of postal receipts and UPC of registered letters are Annexures C.52 to C.58, copy of envelope containing parchas of sale proceeds (Annexure C.59) and copies of Jamabandi of the land of the complainant (Annexures C.60 to C.89).
13. In the present case we have heard learned Counsel for the complainant only and had not an opportunity of hearing the other parties since no one appeared on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 to 4 since opposite parties No.1 to 3 were already ex-parte and only version had been submitted by opposite party No.4.
14. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we are of the considered view that this is a clear case of deficiency of service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3 which fact has been proved from the affidavit of the complainant on record and by the documents, Annexures C.2 to C.35 that the complainant had sent 3202 apple boxes to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 from time to time, the details thereof had been given in detail in paras No.11 to 15 of the complaint as first consignment of 633 boxes was sent by the complainant from Jubbal on 23.8.2009 and thereafter from Chandigarh the same was sent to the opposite party No.1 on 25.8.2009 through Link Roadways, Chandigarh and this consignment reached at Thanjavur and was received and sold by opposite parties No.1 to 3 and similarly second consignment of 682 apple boxes was sent by the complainant from Dhar, Jubbal to Chandigarh and thereafter transported from Chandigarh to Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, on 28.8.2009 through Link Roadways. Chandigarh in Vehicle No.HR-69-2809 and similarly 3rd consignment of 600 apple boxes was by the complainant from Jubbal to Chandigarh on 29.8.2009 and thereafter it further sent through Link Roadways, Chandigarh on 30.8.2009 from Chandigarh to opposite parties No.1 to 3 in vehicle No.TN 28AC-7321 vide G.R., Annexure C.24.
This fact is also proved from the averments made in the complaint which is duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant that 4th consignment of 643 apple boxes and again 5th consignment of 643 apple boxes were sent from Jubbal to Chandigarh by the complainant and thereafter consignment of 643 boxes each time was further transported by the Link Roadway, Chandigarh to opposite parties No.1 to 3 at Thanjavur in Vehicle No.TN 29AY-6979 vide G.R., Annexure C.30 and in Vehicle No. TN 28AA 7273 vide G.R. Annexure C.36 respectively. As such, from the evidence on record, this fact is clearly proved that the complainant has sent 3202 apple boxes to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 from time to time at the agreed rate as per Annexure C.1 was Rs.2,000/- per apple box . As such, the total value of 3202 apple boxes comes to Rs.64,04,000/- @ Rs.2000/-
per box which was the promised rate to be paid by the opposite parties No.1 to 3. In this case the complainant had alleged in the complaint that only a sum of Rs.15,24,000/- had been received and as such an amount of Rs.43,67,000/- is due from the opposite parties No.1 to
3. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 have received 3202 apple boxes from the complainant, the agreed price thereof comes to Rs.64,04,000/- @ Rs.2,000/- per apple box and only the payment of Rs.15,24,000/- had been paid. As such, the complainant and his family members are entitled for an amount of Rs.43,67,000/- from opposite parties No.1 to 3 since the averments made in the complaint had not been controverted by leading any evidence by the opposite parties No.1 to 3 in the present case. The complainant alongwith his family members is also held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for the mental harassment and agony suffered by him at the hands of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 in not making the payment despite receipt of the apple boxes, which to us appears to be just compensation which will meet the ends of justice. As such, it is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3 and the complainant and his other family members as such are entitled for compensation for mental harassment and agony to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite parties No.1 to 3 besides litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
However, there appears to be substance in the version submitted by respondent No.4, Secretary Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Thanjavur, who had pleaded that Thanjavur district is a Cauvery delta region and there are no chances of cultivation of apple there, as such apple has not been notified in Thanjavur district under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987, wherein only agricultural produce i.e. paddy, groundnut, cocoanut, blackgram, greengram, redgram, tobacco, cashewnut, maize, gingelly, chillies, cotton and sugar-cane-jaggery have been included in the notification issued under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987. As such, there is no force in the complaint qua the relief(s) claimed against opposite party No.4 and opposite party No.4 had been wrongly impleaded as a party in the complaint and even Counsel for the complainant had not shown any authority of law for holding opposite party No.4 liable for the compensation in the present case.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the present complaint and as such complainant and his family members are entitled for a sum of Rs.43,67,000/- from the opposite parties No.1 to 3 and as such opposite parties No.1 to 3 are held liable jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.43,67,000/- to the complainant/his family members on account of balance sale proceeds of apple boxes alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date when this amount was due to the complainant till the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 7.1.2010. In addition to this, opposite parties No.1 to 3 are also jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,00/- to the complainant/his family members on account of mental harassment, agony and damages suffered by the complainant/his family members due to the act of unfair trade practice/deficiency of service on their part and the complainant will also be entitled to cost of Rs.10,000/- which the opposite parties No.1 to 3 shall pay jointly and severally to the complainant. However, the complaint qua opposite party No.4 is dismissed. It is further ordered that in case the awarded amount is not paid by the opposite parties No.1 to 3 within 90 days from the date of this order, then the complainant will be further entitled to interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made to the complainant.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
Shimla, Announced on November 22, 2011.
( Chander Shekhar Sharma ) Presiding Member ( Prem Chauhan ) Member