T.G.VASANTHA GUPTHAAppella vs ADDAGALLA SESHAPANI

THIS appeal is filed by the third opposite party in O.P. No. 323/1996 on the file of District Forum, Kurnool.

THE complaint was filed by one Addagalla Seshapani alleging that on 3.11.1996, he entered into a service contract with the opposite parties. As per the contract, the complainant would pay Rs. 14,000/- + Rs. 8,000/- and opposite parties have to grow Eucalyptus plantation. Though the complainant paid the amount, the opposite parties did not act as per the contract. THEy have to supply 75 Metric Tons of Eucalyptus wood or pay Rs. 38,600/- after expiry of 6 years at the option of the complainant or to pay a sum of Rs. 48,600/- in case the complainant transferred the scheduled land in favour of the opposite parties. But they neither paid the amount nor supplied the Eucalyptus wood, hence the complaint. Opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 appeared before the District Forum. Version was filed by opposite party No. 2, which was adopted by opposite party No. 1. Opposite Party No. 3 also filed its version. Notice was not served on opposite party No. 4 and no steps were taken. Even the order copy sent to opposite party No. 4 returned unserved. The opposite parties contended that the complainant was not a consumer and they denied all the material allegations. Opposite party No. 3 stated that he was not a director of first opposite party firm and as such he had not received any money from the complainant and hence the question of entering into a contract does not arise. The complainant filed the relevant documents while the opposite parties did not file any document in support of their case.

The District Forum on a consideration of the material on record came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly directed them to pay a sum of Rs. 48,600/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 20.8.1992 till 21.12.1996 and subsequent thereto, after taking re-transfer of the scheduled land in favour of the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 500/-.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, this appeal is filed. As per our docket order dated 24.6.1999, the appellant did not press the appeal against respondents 2 to 4 and hence the appeal against them was dismissed. Going through the records, we find that there is no dispute that the complainant entered into a contract with the opposite parties by paying the required amount and that one acre of land was registered in his name on which the Eucalyptus plantation had to be raised by the opposite parties and at the end of 6 years, they have to pay Rs. 38,600/- or supply 75 metric tons of Eucalyptus wood. However, they failed to do so. Their contention was that the Rayalaseema Paper Mills was closed for some time and then it was taken over by private management who were expected to buy the Eucalyptus wood, however, since they did not purchase the wood, they were not in a position to pay the amount. As per the contract, there was a third alternative i.e. the opposite parties would pay Rs. 48,600/- to the complainant and he would transfer the land in their favour and the same thing was ordered by the District Forum. The appellant has repeatedly asserted both in his version before the District Forum and also in this appeal that he is not the director of opposite party No. 1 firm. However, he has not produced a shred of evidence either in the District Forum or in the appeal to prove that he is not a director of opposite party No. 1 on the other hand he has withdrawn the appeal against the other three respondents-opposite parties. In any case, he cannot have any grievance against the complainant who in fact was deprived of his hard earned money, therefore, there is no doubt in our mind that the appellants hand is in glove with the other respondents. Therefore, we do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order of the District Forum. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for payment six weeks. Appeal dismissed.