D.O.F : 30/12/2023
D.O.O : 28/06/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.423/2023
Dated this, the 28th day of June 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Balakrishnan A
S/o Chandu Maniyani
Puthiyapura House,
Aninha, Perumbala P O
Kasaragod Dist - 671317.
(Adv: Sumesh T & Shilpa Prasad) : Complainant
And
Anoop
The Manager
Mekkara Fish Hatchery
Thekkumpadam Road
Mannuthy, Pattikkad,
Thrissur, Kerala -680652. : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant is a farmer and the opposite party is running a hatchery namely Mekkara Fish Hatchery at Thrissur. By seeing the advertisements and articles of the Hatchery, the complainant approached the opposite party through phone calls for purchasing some fingerlings fish for developing the complainant’s farm. Thereafter, the opposite party convinced the qualities of their fish breeds and specialties of their business to the complainant. Believing the assurance and offers given by the opposite party, he has decided to purchase fingerlings from the opposite party. Then the complainant had booked the 1000 live fingerlings fish of Assamvala Breed on 10/11/2023 by paying an amount of Rs. 4,000/- through Google pay with an additional payment of Rs. 250/-. The opposite party informed the complainant that they will deliver the booked live fingerlings to the complainant through courier service by their agent itself. At the time of booking or even delivery, the complainant has not given an opportunity for physical verification of the above said live fingerlings. And on 17/11/2023, the complainant has received two packets of live fingerlings consisting of 500 live fingerlings on each packet. After unboxing the packets and after taking out the live fingerlings fish from the packets, it is noticed that not a single fingerling among them were alive. All the live fingerlings in those two packets where completely destroyed. The complainant had contacted the opposite party through phone but he was not ready to take any responsibility of damage that has been caused to the complainant. As per the direction and guidelines given by the opposite party, the complainant has constructed a fish tank by spending more than Rs. 20,000/- in his agriculture land by expecting these fingerlings. All efforts of the complainant in starting a fish farm became meaningless due to the deficiency of service from the opposite party. The opposite party failed to render his service as per the assurance that he has given. The complainant had sent a registered lawyer notice dated 29/11/2023 to the opposite party by calling upon him to compensate his loss due to the deficiency of service committed by him. But the same was returned as unclaimed notice. The complainant had suffered huge damages, untold mental agony and sufferings due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Further, the complainant had spent his hard earned money Rs. 20,000/- for construction of fish pond as per the direction of opposite party. The cause of action for the complaint arose on and since 10/11/2023 (the date of booking) 17/11/2023 (the date of receipt of the parcel) and on 29/11/2023 (causing of registered lawyers notice by the complainant to the opposite party by the repudiating the claim of the complainant) within the jurisdiction of this Honorable commission. The prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite party to refund of Rs. 4,250/- towards purchase amount and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as the expenses incurred on for him in building pond for fish farming as per the direction of opposite party along with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the full cost of the proceeding.
Notice of opposite party returned unclaimed. Name of opposite party called absent, set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents Ext. A1 to A4 marked. The issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
The case of the complainant is that he had booked the 1000 live fingerlings fish of Assamvala breed on 10/11/2023 by paying an amount of Rs. 4,000/- plus additional Rs. 250/- also paid. The opposite party informed that they will deliver the booked live fingerlings through courier service by their agent. The complainant was not availed an opportunity for physical verification of the above said live fingerlings. On 17/11/2023, the complainant received 2 packets consisting 500 live fingerlings on each packet. While unboxing them, he was shocked that not a single fingerling among them was alive. The complainant had spent Rs. 20,000/- as per the direction of opposite party to construct a fish tank. All his efforts in starting a fish farm became vain, due to the deficiency of service of opposite party. The opposite party failed to render his service as promised earlier. The complainant made several requests to opposite party for repayment soon after receiving the parcel. But no positive responds from his side for compensating the loss. Aggrieved by the irresponsible attitude of opposite party, the complainant caused to send a registered lawyer notice dated 29/11/2023, calling upon him to compensate his loss due to deficiency of service committed by him, Ext. A1 is produced to prove this. But the same was returned as unclaimed, Ext. A2 is also produced. The copy of the parcel bill is Ext. A3. Copy of the screenshots is Ext. A4 series.
We carefully gone through the affidavit and material evidences produced by the complainant. Ext. A1 to A4 series produced. After unboxing the parcel, the complainant contacted opposite party through phone to inform his grievance loss and mental agony but there were no positive response from opposite party shows that it was a well-planned and willful cheating. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, which caused huge loss, damages and hardships to the complainant. The complainant is entitled for relief in this case. The prayer of the complainant is to repay Rs. 4,250/- being the price of the fingerlings with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with expenses incurred for the fish tank.
This commission holds that the complainant is entitled for the price of the fingerlings along with compensation and cost. Considering the facts of this case, this commission holds that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing opposite party to refund Rs. 4,250/- (Rupees Four thousand Two hundred and Fifty only) with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) along with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Copy of the registered lawyer notice
A2 – Unclaimed notice
A3 – Copy of the parcel way bill
A4 – Copy of the screenshots
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
