Case nº Revision Petition No. 2003 Of 2011, (Against the Order dated 15/04/2011 in Appeal No. 550/2008 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, June 08, 2015 (case 1. B. Dungarmal and Anr 2. Mr D. Mahesh Vs Ms. Plastro Plasson Industiral India Ltd. and Anr.)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: Ms. E.R. Sumathy, Advocate
PresidentMr. V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
DefenseConsumer Law
Resolution DateJune 08, 2015
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Mr. V.K. Jain, Presideing Member (Oral)

  1. The complainant / petitioner who is a farmer, entered into an agreement with the respondent whereby the respondent was to install drip irrigation system in the field of the complainant / petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 1,98,483/-. Payment of the aforesaid amount was made by the petitioner / complainant on 10.07.2003, through Rama Kumar Industries. The case of the complainant / petitioner is that though the work was required to be completed within one month from the date of the payment, there was substantial delay on the part of the respondent in completing the work. This is also the case of the petitioner / complainant that the work executed by the respondent was defective as a result of which the entire Banana Crop in his field got damaged. The petitioner / complainant is also aggrieved from non-payment of subsidy amount of Rs. 88,000/- which the respondent was to receive from the government and pay to the petitioner / complainant. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid deficiencies on the part of the respondent, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

  2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent primarily on the ground that the drip irrigation system was installed by it to the satisfaction of the complainant and minor defects noticed later were also duly rectified. According to the respondent, the field of the complainant did not have proper water, as a result of which water could not be taken to overhead tank. As regards government subsidy, it was stated in the reply that no such subsidy was released to the respondent by government since requisite documents in this regard were not submitted by the complainant / petitioner.

  3. The District Forum vide its order dated 10.12.2007 directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant as damages alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 2,000/-.

  4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned District Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 15.04.2011 the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by District Forum. Being aggrieved the petitioner / complainant is before this commission by way of this revision petition.

  5. The first question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioner / complainant has been able to...

To continue reading

Request your trial