By. Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The complainant for his livelihood decided to do farming activities in his property at Edaguni and thus he wanted to set a poly house in this property. The opposite party undertook to
-2-
construct the poly house in this property and thereby they have given a quotation dated 09.09.2013 for an amount of Rs.5,51,250/- for construction of 500 square meter poly house. The opposite party convinced the complainant that they are expertise in constructing the poly house and they shall construct the poly house with best materials which withstand any climatic conditions up to 15 to 20 years. They have also given a warranty of one year for the poly house. Thus the complainant entrusted the opposite party the construction of poly house and after construction, complainant paid the entire amount. But the poly house started getting damage within one year contrary to the assurances and guarantee given by the opposite party. It rendered useless and thereby complainant faced huge crop loss. The GI pipes used by the opposite party were of substandard quality and not having the required thickness. Though the opposite party charged the cost of erecting a medium cost poly house, the materials used are not having the required standard and specifications. It is well known and accepted standard that poly house shall have a life span of about 20 years and glazing material shall have a life span of at least 3 years. Therefore the opposite party did not construct the poly house in accordance with the acceptable standards and specifications. Though the fact of damage to the poly house was informed to the opposite party
-3-
they have not taken any steps to rectify the same. During March 2016, after repeated demands, the opposite party has given a quotation of Rs.2,08,525/- and sent some labours. But the repair work was not carried out satisfactorily as poor quality materials and resources were used by the opposite party. The north polls at northern side of poly house had a bend and the roof sheets got sagged. The earlier defects pointed out by the complainant were also not rectified. As a result of poor workmanship, defective poor quality materials and resources used by opposite party for construction of poly house, the complainant could not carry out meaningful agricultural activities. Thereby complainant faced crop loss, monitory loss, and also severe mental agony. So, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on opposite party. The complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party on 18.04.2016 for getting repair of poly house with the required standard and to make compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs towards crop loss and mental agony. The opposite party received the notice, but not replied. Thereafter opposite party sent a letter to complainant on 29.04.2016 requesting payment of Rs.3,600/-. It is only a counter blast to the notice of the complainant. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to carryout necessary repair work to poly house at their cost in accordance with the prescribed standard, to direct the
-4-
opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation towards the crop loss and mental agony sustained to him and cost.
3. Opposite party filed version contenting as follows:- They admitted the constructed the poly house for the complainant. They constructed the poly house as per the stipulations in the agreement between the complainant and opposite party and as per the direction and norms of the Kerala Horticulture Mission. The Agricultural Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer of Kerala Agricultural Department had specifically monitored the construction and gave accreditation for the building. At the time of construction, the Deputy Director of Kerala Horticulture Mission Sri. Alex Mathew, Agricultural Officer of Krishi Bhavan Smt. Raji had inspected the site. Thereafter, the complainant got 75% subsidy for the poly house due to the perfection of the construction. The complainant is not interested in cultivation when he got job in Vythiri village resort. There after he neglected and abounded the poly house cultivation. While so, in the year 2014, there occurred flood and storm in the area. Almost all cultivation in this area was damaged and the poly house of complainant also got damaged. The complainant inspected the spot as per the information received from the opposite party. The
-5-
complainant obtained Rs.95,000/- for the damage of his poly house due to natural calamity from the United India Insurance Company, Kalpetta. Damage estimate was prepared by opposite party. So the opposite party had completed the work successfully and even after damage it was repaired by them. The complainant has filed this complaint suppressing the fact of natural calamity. Thus he is not entitled to get any relief claimed.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice
from the opposite party. If so, whether the complainant is
entitled to get anything as claimed?
2. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, CW1, Ext.A1 to A4, Ext.C1 and Ext.X1 to X4. There is no oral evidence from the side of opposite party.
6. Point No.1:- Admittedly the opposite party had constructed a poly house in the property of complainant at Edaguni and within one year it was
-6-
damaged. The allegation of the complainant is that though the opposite party assured a life of 15 to 20 years to this poly house, due to the poor workmanship and substandard materials, the poly house got damage. Thus he alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the opposite party. He specifically alleged in the complaint that the opposite party used substandard GI pipes which was not having the required thickness and as a result of the opposite party’s poor workmanship and defective and poor quality materials and resources, the poly house got damage. On the other hand the specific case of the opposite party is that they have constructed the poly house as per the required standards under the supervision of agricultural engineers and the government has given 75% subsidy to the complainant after inspecting the quality of the poly house. Their specific case is that poly house got damage due to natural calamity.
7. To prove the complainant’s case, he has given evidence as PW1. Ext.A1 is the Quotation. Ext.A2 is the Letter sent by the complainant to opposite party and Ext.A4 is the Lawyer notice send by the complainant to the opposite party. In Ext.A2 and A4, the complainant specifically alleged that the damage to the poly house was occurred due to the poor workmanship of opposite party and poor quality of the materials used by him. Ext.A3 is inspection report of the
-7-
Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kalpetta which shows damage to the poly house. The counsel appearing for the opposite party vehemently contented that the complainant has filed this complaint by suppressing the real fact. According to him, the poly house became damaged only due to natural calamity and complainant obtained insurance claim for the loss occurred to poly house due to natural calamity. Ext.X1 to X4 contain the files related to the loan transaction between the complainant and bank for construction of poly house, the subsidy obtained by the complainant, the file relating to the insurance claim snd the details of natural calamity. Ext.X1 would go to show that the complainant applied for the insurance claim for the damage of his poly house due to natural calamity. Therefore though the complainant alleged the reasons for the damage of his poly house are the poor workmanship and poor quality of materials, Ext.X2 to X4 would go to show that his poly house got damages due to natural calamity. In addition to this, we have to go through the evidence of PW1, complainant. PW1 himself admitted that his poly house got damage due to natural calamity. During the cross examination, he himself admitted that he obtained insurance claim for the damage of his poly house due to natural calamity. He admitted that on07.04.2015 there was natural calamity and he informed about this damage to
-8-
the Krishi Bhavan. Therefore the documents and the evidence of PW1 show that the reason for the damage of the poly house of the complainant is not due to poor construction, but due to the natural calamity. Therefore the complainant himself proves that his case is false. So we have to find that the complainant came with a false case in order to get compensation illegally. So evidently there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to get anything as claimed in this case. Therefore the point is answered against the complainant.
8. Point No.2:- Since Point No.1 is found against complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of December 2019.
Date of Filing: 30.09.2016.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
-9-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Arun Sivaram. Agriculture.
CW1. Dr. Rajendran. P. Associate Director of Research,
Ambalavayal.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Quotation. Dt:09.09.2013.
A2. Copy of Letter. Dt:12.02.2016.
A3. Inspection Report of Agricultural Officer.
A4. Lawyer Notice. Dt:18.04.2016.
C1. Commission Report. Dt:19.12.2017.
X1. Documents Produced by Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited.
X2. Documents Produced by Krishi Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kalpetta.
X3. Documents Produced by Principal Agricultural Officer, Kalpetta.
X4. Documents Produced by Krishi Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kalpetta.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRF, WAYANAD.
