State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Arvind Patel & Ors vs Vgp Agro Farm Pvt.Ltd. on 10 February, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.1299 OF 2007 Date of filing: 17/10/2007 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.124/2006 Date of order :10/02/2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: MUMBAI SUBURBAN 1. Mr.Arvind Patel 2. Ms.Sudhaben A.Patel 3. Mrs.Nirmala Patel All R/o. A/404, Kshitij Ram Mandir Road Goregaon (West) Mumbai 400 104 Appellants/org.complainants v/s. 1. Managing Director VGP Agro Farm Pvt.Ltd. VGP Square Saidapet, Chennai 600 015 2. Branch Manager VGP Agro Farm Pvt.Ltd. 226, Deepak building Sion (west), Mumbai 400 022 ..Respondents/org.O.Ps Quorum : Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Honble President Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member
Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar-Honble Member Present:
Mr.Arvind Patel appellant no.1 in person Mr.M.E.Joe-Advocate for the respondent : ORAL ORDER:
Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member
1. This appeal arises out of order award dated 21/9/2007 passed in consumer complaint no.124/2006, Mr.Arvind Patel and others v/s. Managing Director, VGP Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd. and another by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum (Forum below in short).
2. Appellants/org. complainants agreed to purchase a plot of half acre in area where Teak plantation was to be carried out and, accordingly, parties entered into an agreement dated 09/11/1994. As per the terms of the said agreement 150 saplings of Teak tree were to be planted in the area and other facilities such as energy connection, approach road facility, etc. were to be given. Rs.2000/- p.a. was to be contributed by the complainants towards the maintenance of the plantation and if, they constructs a farm house then liability to maintain those saplings was to cease on the part of the respondent/org.O.P. It is the grievance of the complainants that nothing has been done to carry out the said work in spite of contribution in money as agreed and, therefore, consumer complaint is filed.
3. Said consumer complaint stood dismissed holding that complainant is not a consumer and it is not a consumer dispute. Besides this, complainants were also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensatory cost to be credited to Consumer Welfare fund. Feeling aggrieved by such order this appeal is preferred by the original complainants.
4. We heard appellant no.1 in person and Mr.M.E.Joe-Advocate for the respondent at length.
5. In the instant case what we find is that that respondent/O.P. has filed an affidavit in evidence. However, complainants have not filed anything to that effect in compliance of provisions of section 13 sub-section (4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (Herein after referred as Act for brevity). They have placed on record copies of the correspondence between the parties as well as copy of the agreement of sale. It is not made clear which were admitted documents, which could be therefore taken into consideration. What we find is after the enquiry from both the parties that the parties as well as forum below did not follow the procedure as required under section 13 sub-section (4) to lead evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we find, it would be proper if the matter is remitted back so that both the parties may be given proper opportunities to lead evidence and then dispute can be settled according to law. Apart from this, we also further find certain defects in drafting the complaint, particularly, about description of the opposite parties. It needs to be more clarified for the trial of consumer complaint as well as whenever question as to the execution of any order, if the complaint is allowed, would arise, proper course of action could be taken. Since we have already decided to remit back the matter, the complainants may consider all these aspects and, if, necessary do the necessary corrections in the consumer complaint with the leave of the forum below.
For the reasons mentioned above, we hold accordingly and pass following order:-
ORDER
1.
Appeal is allowed.
2. Impugned order /award dated 21/9/2007 is set aside.
3. Complaint is remitted back to the forum below in the light of the observations made earlier.
4. Both the parties be given opportunity to amend their complaint and the written version, if they so desire and, thereafter, opportunity to lead evidence be given to them as per section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, thereafter, dispute be settled according to law.
5. Forum below shall make endeavour to dispose of the complaint within 3 months from the date of appearance before it.
6. Both the parties shall appear before the forum below on 09/3/2010.
7. In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
8. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties and forum below.
(Dhanraj Khamatkar) (S.R.Khanzode) (S.B.Mhase) Member Judicial Member President Ms.