Haryana

Karnal

CC/795/2019

Smt. Sunita Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (HSAMB) - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

10 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 795 of 2019

                                                                     Date of instt.29.11.2019

                                                                     Date of Decision 10.12.2019

 

Smt. Sunita Devi, aged 45 years, wife of late Shri Ram Swaroop son of late Shri Keshav Ram, resident of village Bir Naryana, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                                         …….Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

1. Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (HSAMB) C-6, Sector-6, Chandigarh.

2. The Secretary-cum-Nodal Officer, Market Committee, Taraori, District Karnal.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal.

                                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

             Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.       

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri S.S.Moonak Advocate for complainant.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the husband of complainant namely Ram Swaroop (since deceased) was agriculturist labourer and was doing the agricultural labour work. On 07.09.2018, the husband of the complainant had gone to the agricultural fields of Narinder Singh son of Ram Singh of the village to do agricultural work. At about 12.30/1.00 O’clock, when he was working on there, he slipped and fell down in the Tubewell and received injuries on his head, neck and other part of body. He suffered fracture in his neck. From the place of accident, husband of complainant was shifted to Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College Hospital, Karnal, due to serious condition he was referred to Chandigarh. He was taken to Medical College, Sector 32 Chandigarh, where he did during the course of treatment on 19.09.2018 in the said hospital. His Post Mortem was conducted there on the next day. In this regard the matter was reported to the local police and DDR no.14 dated 09.09.2018 was recorded in this regard with the police of P.P.Taraori District Karnal. However, the local police did not record the statement properly, as such the applicant moved an application to the S.S.P. Karnal as well as P.S. Taraori by registered Post on 03.04.2019. The complainant submitted the claim form alongwith all the relevant documents with the OP no.2 for the death compensation of deceased Ram Swaroop as per the policy of the Haryana Government. However, after waiting for long time, the claim was declined by the OP no.2, vide letter dated 18.05.2019. The said letter is totally null and void and not binding upon the rights of the complainant. The complainant is entitled to the compensation as per the policy issued by the Haryana Government amounting to Rs.5 lakhs. OPs did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the said policy and did not pay any amount to the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.                Today the case was fixed for consideration on the point of admissibility. First of all we can decide whether the complainant falls under the definition of consumer or not?

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

4.                The definition of consumer is defined in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reproduced as under:-

(d) “Consumer” means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promise or partly paid and partly promises, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.”

The onus was upon the complainant to prove that whether she was consumer of OPs but complainant failed to prove on file to prove the same. Hence, as per section 2(1)(d) consumer is not the consumer of OPs.  Hence, when complainant is not consumer of OPs, the present complaint is not maintainable.

5.                In view of such facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is not admitted and the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the competent court of law, if so desired. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 10.12.2019

                                                                                      President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                     Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                         Member                    Member