w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



P.S. Annamalai v/s Hatsun Agro Products Ltd., Chennai & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- G H AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15143PB1996PTC018159

Company & Directors' Information:- S A AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403WB2013PTC195653

Company & Directors' Information:- B. D. AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01400WB2009PTC136319

Company & Directors' Information:- D A P AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403WB2011PTC157956

Company & Directors' Information:- B. K. AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB1990PTC049682

Company & Directors' Information:- S V M A AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142TZ2003PTC010834

Company & Directors' Information:- K E AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15314KL2002PTC015782

Company & Directors' Information:- AGRO (INDIA) PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01500DL2013PTC250521

Company & Directors' Information:- W B AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15400KA2014PTC073123

Company & Directors' Information:- D M AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066893

Company & Directors' Information:- D N AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15314UR2005PTC032824

Company & Directors' Information:- N K AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15490PB2010PTC034534

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01300TZ1991PTC003161

Company & Directors' Information:- S B R AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01120TN2008PTC070170

Company & Directors' Information:- B S AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29246WB1995PTC073119

Company & Directors' Information:- S C P AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15400WB2010PTC154344

Company & Directors' Information:- B B AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01111WB1999PTC089962

Company & Directors' Information:- B. R. AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MP2020PTC052151

Company & Directors' Information:- J. M AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01122UP2007PTC032828

Company & Directors' Information:- P M AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01100MP2010PTC023037

Company & Directors' Information:- M. C. AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990WB2009PTC135219

Company & Directors' Information:- P G AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01403WB2009PTC139377

Company & Directors' Information:- L. M. AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15139DL2010PTC207504

Company & Directors' Information:- C K AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403AP2016PTC098332

Company & Directors' Information:- R J AGRO PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15311KA2005PTC036080

Company & Directors' Information:- P.S. PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51214RJ1987PTC004036

Company & Directors' Information:- AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U01131OR1983PTC001188

Company & Directors' Information:- R L R AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01403TG2012PTC082514

Company & Directors' Information:- R P V AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01300TZ1997PTC008071

Company & Directors' Information:- A V S AGRO-PRODUCTS COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC070790

Company & Directors' Information:- M R AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01400MH2012PTC226708

Company & Directors' Information:- B. U. AGRO-PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01100GJ2018PTC101009

    F.A.NO.432 of 2006 [Against order in C.C.No.53 of 2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)]

    Decided On, 23 November 2009

    At, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai

    By, HON'BLE THIRU JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT THIRU PON. GUNASEKARAN B.A.
    By, B.L.
    By, MEMBER - I

    For the Appearing Parties: M/s. S.K. Srinivasan, K. Harish & S.G. Ramesh Cumar, M/s. Ramalingam & Associates, K. Ravikumar, Advocates.



Judgment Text

HON?BLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT


1. The complainant having filed a case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), claiming a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation, able to succeed in getting a sum of Rs.7,500/-, thereby aggrieved, preferred this appeal for enhancement or claiming the amount as in the complaint.


2. The complainant/appellant celebrated the marriage of his daughter at Guruvayur, and being a popular man as claimed, he intended to have a reception at Chennai on 4.7.2004 at Dharmaprakash Main Hall, Raja Annamalai Road, Purasaivakkam, Chennai, for which, expecting 800 guests, he ordered for the supply of 33 units of ice cream, for which, he paid a sum of Rs.3,168/-, uponr which, the opposite parties have agreed to deliver the above said units of ice cream on 4.7.2004 at 5 p.m. at Dharmaprakash Main Hall. Though the complainant was waiting for the delivery of the ice cream, till 5 p.m. as agreed, the opposite parties have not delivered the ice cream, and on contact, they informed that they have noted the delivery date as 24.07.2004 instead of 4.7.2004. The non supply of ice cream, as undertook by the respondents, amounts to deficiency in service, which had caused pain and mental agony, in view of the fact that he had spent a total sum of Rs.2 lakhs in making all the arrangements for the reception. Thus complaining, deficiency in service, claiming compensation, notice issued, for which, there was no positive result, and therefore the complainant was constrained to file a case for the recovery a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards loss of reputation, peace and mental agony and for a sum of Rs.1 lakh as damages, with cost.


3. The respondents/opposite parties denying the adverse allegations against them in the complaint, inter alia contended that as agreed, they have despatched the ice cream in a vehicle bearing registration No.TN-10-H-4233 and the vehicle was unable to reach the reception spot due to mechanical failure, and when the ice cream was sent by making alternative arrangement, the complainant refused to take delivery of the ice cream, turned back the official of this opposite party. The opposite parties having refunded the amount, received from the complainant, are not liable for any deficiency in service or damages on false grounds and thereby prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


4. The trial forum evaluating the above pleadings, as well as, the documents relied on by the appellant namely Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, has come to the conclusion that the defence projected by the opposite parties are not proved, that for the non supply of ice cream, the complainant who was expecting in time, would have suffered some mental agony and in this view, quantifying the compensation at Rs.7,500/-, ordered the opposite parties, to pay the same, as per the order dated 15.65.2006 which is under challenge.


5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side, perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum.


6. The learned counsel appeared for the appellant would contend that the trial forum having come to the conclusion that the defence projected by the opposite parties is not proved and concluding that there was deficiency in service, considering the status of the complainant, would have granted the compensation as prayed for, whereas, it failed to do so and in this view, the same could be rectified by allowing the appeal, which is opposed.


7. It is the common case of the parties, and even, we can say that it is admitted fact also, that the appellant/complainant has ordered for the supply of 33 units of ice cream, for the reception, of his daughter?s marriage on 4.7.2004, for which, he has paid the entire amount also. Admittedly, whether inadvertently or noting the date of delivery incorrectly, namely 4.7.2004, the opposite parties have not supplied the ice cream. Therefore, the complainant was disappointed and he was unable to satisfy the guests also, who have attended the reception on 4.7.2004. The complainant accusing the opposite parties, that they have committed deficiency in service, filed the case as said above, which ended in partial success, and this appeal is aimed for full success.


8. Even before filing of the case or after the filing of the case, it seems, as pleaded in Para 6 of the written version, the opposite parties have refunded the amount received from the complainant and therefore ordinarily they are not entitled to claim any damage, since without any protest, they have received the amount. Assuming that the amount was received under protest, we have to see, whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.2 lakhs, each Rs.1 lakh under two categories as claimed in the prayer column.


9. The opposite parties, though suffered an adverse order, have not challenged the same and therefore, it should be taken that there was deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. In the complaint, though a sum of Rs.1 lakh is claimed, towards loss of reputation, peace and mental agony, and a further sum of Rs.1 lakh towards damages, we are unable to find any averments, how those amounts were quantified. The complainant appears to be a stamp vendor and he might have invited his friends for the marriage reception of his daughter. The non supply of ice cream, one of the item to be served, would not have totally collapsed the reception or would not have caused so much of mental agony, as claimed, and for this, we are unable to find any details regarding the loss of reputation, peace and mental agony etc., In the same manner towards damages also, we find no details either in the complaint or in the affidavit, how he suffered damages and quantified the same at Rs.1 lakh. For the non supply of the ice cream, which is valued at Rs.3,254/-, the claim of damages to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs is an imaginary claim, that too, when the complain

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ant had received the entire amount paid by him. The lower forum considering all these facts and the status of the complainant, as well, taking into account, the disappointment and to satisfy the same, awarded the damage of Rs.7,500/- which is quite satisfactory, and reasonable, and we do not find any reasons to enhance the same and in this view, the appeal is devoid of merit, liable to dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), in OP.No.53/2005, dt.15.05.2006. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.
O R