Asith vs G. Manjunath

COMPLAINANT G. Manjunath had filed a consumer complaint against the present respondent before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimoga. The case of the complainant was that the OP Asith, Proprietor, Akshay Enterprises had undertaken, and was paid for, commissioning of a drip irrigation system in 28.28 acres of the complainant''s land. The work was executed only to the extent of 18 acres. Due to this under completion of irrigation system, fruit crops planted by the complainant in remaining 10.28 acres suffered heavily. Even the quality of material used was alleged to be inferior to the agreed quality. Due to such incomplete execution of the work and inferior quality, the complainant was also deprived of central subsidy to the extent of the Rs. 4.5 lakh. Per contra, the case of the present revision petitioner/OP was that the work had been fully executed as agreed between the parties. There was no under completion. The consumer complaint was alleged to have been filed as a counter -blast to a money claim of the OP against the complainant.

THE District Forum held that the complainant was entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 2,40,364 for the implementation of the drip irrigation system in the remaining area of 10.28 acres, Rs. 50,000 towards labour including the cost of the planting material, Rs 15,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation cost. The above order of the District Forum was appealed by both parties, before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by a common order of 21.10.2011. The State Commission had dismissed both appeals and confirmed the order of the District Forum. Now a revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Commission by Shri Asith, Proprietor, M/s. Akshay Enterprises, Shimoga, who were the original respondent before the District Forum.

WE have carefully considered the records and heard the two sides. Advocates, Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar for the revision petitioner and Mr. Nagaia, for the respondent/complainant, have been heard by the Circuit Bench of this Commission at Bangalore.

THE District Forum had first dismissed the complaint on 13.12.2008. Its decision was upheld by the State Commission in the appeal decided on 20.7.2009. However, when the matter went before National Commission, it was remanded back on 17.2.2010 for fresh consideration and disposal by the District Forum. In the second round of consideration of the complaint, the District Forum has granted relief to the complainant as mentioned above. In the revision petition before us, the main ground of challenge to the impugned order is that there is no material on record to show that only 18 acres of lands was drip irrigated. The revision petition primarily rests upon the reports dated 14.10.2008 and 4.11.2008 of the Commissioner appointed by the District Forum. According to the revision petitioner, the respondent/complainant owns 46 acres, out of which 37.14 acres were under drip irrigation, as reported by the Court Commissioner. We find that the District Forum has considered evidence relating to barbed wire fencing of the area and purchase of planting materials, to come to the conclusion that the work was executed only to the extent of 18 acres and not 28.28 acres.

AS for the report of the Court Commissioner, the District Forum has observed: On going through the report of the Commissioner it is clear that the Commissioner without exact measurement by any experienced Surveyor mentioned the extent approximately as 46 acres i.e. barbed wire fenced. As per project report the barbed fencing is only to an extent of 28 acres 28 guntas of land belonging to the complainant. The Commissioner without actual measurement mentioned the extent as drip irrigated as 37.14 acre i.e. approximately. It is not the case of the complainant nor the case of the opponent that the opponent implemented drip irrigation system to so much extent of land but implemented drip irrigation system only to an extent of 18 acre only leaving 10 acres 28 guntas of land.

It needs to be observed that appointment of the local Assistant Director of Horticulture by the District Forum as the Court Commissioner was specifically in the background of the claim of the complainant that the work of commissioning of drip irrigation system was executed by the OP only to the extent of 18 acres of lands and not for 28.28 acres. The Local Commissioner inspected the fields in the presence of the two sides. Yet, the report turned out is more on the condition of fruit crops on this land. It carries no clear cut finding in relation to the acreage of commissioning of drip irrigation by the OP. Only in a passing manner, the report refers to 37.14 acres being under drip irrigation out of the total 46 acres seen by him. But, even after noting the acreage, the report offers no help in determining the reason for non -coverage of about 9 acres falling between the total area and covered area, as mentioned by him. Therefore, in our view the State Commission and the District Forum have both very rightly refused to place any reliance on the report of the Court Commissioner.

In view of the above, we hold that the concurrent findings of the Fora below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence led before them. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity, which could justify intervention of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is consequently dismissed for want of merit.