IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Tuesday the 28^th day of December, 2021.

                                      Filed on 22.12.2020

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.336/2020

between

Complainant:-                                                     Opposite party:-

Smt.Sreekala.V                                                     Sri.Binu N Das

Sivasylam                                                             MRDO (Mushroom Research and

Keezhcherimel                                                       Development Organisation)

Chengannur-689121                                              Chengannur P.O., Alappuzha

(Party in person)                                                    (Adv.Sri.R.Vijayakumar)

                                                                             (Exparte)

               ORDER

C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)

The complainant approached the opposite party, CEO, Mushroom Research Development Organization (MRDO)for doing mushroom farming, as self-employment. She gives up her job as a teacher and decided to start mushroom cultivation is only because of the instigation of the opposite party. Accordingly applied a loan for Rs. 5,42,600/- which was sanctioned on 21/3/2021. The said amount has been transferred to MRDO by way of the cheque, out of which 20%is the working capital of the complainant. The amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- has been collected by the opposite party for the construction of the shed and the completion of other estimated work for the farming. 

As per the agreement within 45 days the construction of the shed is to be completed. But opposite party did not do the work. Thereby the complainant is unable to do farming. The loan was sanctioned within time but due to the laches of the opposite partythe work was delayed. 

At first, decided the area of the shed is 400sq.ft, but due to the lack of space cut short the area as 290 sq. ft, moreover the expense of the foundation has been met by the complainant herself. But said expenses are also included in the project report and obtained the money by the opposite party. But the construction is delaying due to the untenable reasons such as lockdown and Corona. Without completing the construction the complainant suffered mental agony as well as monitory losses. Hence, the complainant. approached the Commission for getting redressal of her grievance. 

       Direct the opposite party to complete the construction of the shed, to pay thecost of the proceedings, to pay compensation for Rs.1.5 lakhs and to refund Rs.30,000 /-as remitted towards the loan. 

2. The complainant was appeared in person. Ext Al to A6 were marked. The opposite party remained absent and declared ex-parte. We have heard the complainant. 

The points that arise for consideration are as follows:- 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the opposite party?
2. Relief and cost? 

3. Point No.1 

Ext A1 is the copy of the passbook, A2 is the copy of the receipt dt 21/3/2020, A3 and A4 are the copy of the project, A5 is the copy of the receipt of the police complaint. 

On perusal of the evidence on records, it seems that the complainant has engaged opposite party's project for mushroom farming and has been taken a loan. It is evident that the loan amount has been transferred to the MRDO. The allegation is that even though it is agreed that the construction would be completed within 45 days but the work is delayed due to unnecessary reasons like lockdown. This caused mental agony and monetary losses to the complainant. Further alleged about the area of construction. It seems that the proof affidavit filed is not in tune with the complaint. It is admitted that the main reason for the delay in construction is the declaration of lockdown. So it cannot be said that purposefully delaying the construction, since after the period of lockdown also took time to normalise the situation., Therefore, the allegation of negligence is not taken into account. Moreover, it is admitted that the construction had completed in the year March 2021. So the relief asks for completion of work is unwarranted. At the same time, there is no evidence that the area of construction is less than the agreement and nothing is before us that the opposite party has obtained more amount from the complainant. 

Opposite party remained absent after the receipt of notice from this Commission. So they failed to substantiate their part with cogent evidence. However, because of the above discussion, it is found that the complainant has no consistent case.  Hence there is no merit in this case.

Point No.2 

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 28^th day of December, 2021

                                                          Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma (Member)

                                                          Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

Ext.A1                       -           Copy of passbook      

Ext.A2                       -           Copy of receipt dtd.21-3-2020

Ext.A3                       -           Copy of the project

Ext.A4                       -           Copy of the project

Ext.A5                       -           Copy of the receipt of the police complaint.

Ext.A6                       -           Copy of agreement

Evidence of the opposite parties:- NIL

// True Copy //

To

            Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.

                                                                                                               By Order

                                                                                                         Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-