DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C No.71 of 10.3.2008 <br /> Decided on : 27.6.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Dalbara Singh S/o Sh. Nazar Singh, Resident of Village Jandanwala, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Gill Seeds (An Agro Unit of Jodh & Tej Estates Pvt. Ltd.), Regd. Office 545, Viveka Nand Marg, Near Mausima Temple, Bhuwneshwar-2(Orissa) through its Managing Director.<br /> 2.Grewal Agro Tech Seeds, 12, Village Chak Ram Singh Wala, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner. ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 72 of 10.3.2008 Decided on : 27.6.2008 <br /> <br /> Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha S/o Sh. Amar Singh, R/o Jandanwala, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Gill Seeds (An Agro Unit of Jodh & Tej Estates Pvt. Ltd.), Regd. Office 545, Viveka Nand Marg, Near Mausima Temple, Bhuwneshwar-2(Orissa) through its Managing Director.<br /> 2. Grewal Agro Tech Seeds, 12, Village Chak Ram Singh Wala, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner. .... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.C. No. 73 of 10.3.2008 Decided on : 27.6.2008 <br /> <br /> Jagjit Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh,R/o Jandanwala, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Gill Seeds (An Agro Unit of Jodh & Tej Estates Pvt. Ltd.), Regd. Office 545, Viveka Nand Marg, Near Mausima Temple, Bhuwneshwar-2(Orissa) through its Managing Director.<br /> 2. Grewal Agro Tech Seeds, 12, Village Chak Ram Singh Wala, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner. ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> C.C No.74 of 10.3.2008 <br /> Decided on : 27.6.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Baljit Singh S/o Sh. Jasvir Singh, Resident of Village Jandanwala, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Gill Seeds (An Agro Unit of Jodh & Tej Estates Pvt. Ltd.), Regd. Office 545, Viveka Nand Marg, Near Mausima Temple, Bhuwneshwar-2(Orissa) through its Managing Director.<br /> 2. Grewal Agro Tech Seeds, 12, Village Chak Ram Singh Wala, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner. ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> C.C.No.75 of 10.3.2008 Decided on : 27.6.2008 <br /> <br /> Baltej Singh S/o Sh. Ginder Singh, R/o Jandanwala, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Gill Seeds (An Agro Unit of Jodh & Tej Estates Pvt. Ltd.), Regd. Office 545, Viveka Nand Marg, Near Mausima Temple, Bhuwneshwar-2(Orissa) through its Managing Director.<br /> 2. Grewal Agro Tech Seeds, 12, Village Chak Ram Singh Wala, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner. ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> <br /> C.C No.76 of 10.3.2008 <br /> Decided on : 27.6.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Resham Singh S/o Sh. Labh Singh, Resident of Village Jandanwala, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Gill Seeds (An Agro Unit of Jodh & Tej Estates Pvt. Ltd.), Regd. Office 545, Viveka Nand Marg, Near Mausima Temple, Bhuwneshwar-2(Orissa) through its Managing Director.<br /> 2. Grewal Agro Tech Seeds, 12, Village Chak Ram Singh Wala, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner. ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainants : Sh. Pankaj Soni, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Pardeep Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.1 <br /> Sh. Manjit Dhamija, counsel for opposite party No.2.<br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Since similar questions of law and facts are involved in Consumer Complaints No. 71 to 76 dated 10.3.2008, Consumer Complaints No. 72 to 76 have been consolidated with Consumer Complaint No. 71 dated 10.3.2008 and all the six complaints are being disposed of with this order. All the six complaints under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) have been preferred by the complainants and each of them seeks direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation on account of damage to the crop, mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation and Rs. 5,500/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainants lies in the narrow compass as under :-<br /> Complainant Darbara Singh in complaint No. 71 is cultivating 9/64th share of land measuring 337 Kanals and 2 Marlas comprising Khata No. 157/598 and 1/8th share of 71 Kanals and 15 Marlas comprising Khata No. 156/591 & 592. The owner of this land is his father Nazar Singh. Complainant Sukhdev Singh in complaint No. 72 is in cultivating possession of 24/315th share of land measuring 116 Kanals and 4 Marlas comprising Khata No. 414/2049 & 2050. Jagjit Singh in complaint No. 73 is the owner in cultivating possession of 1/16th share of land measuring 339 Kanals and 19 Marlas comprising in Khata No. 314/1410 and 1/4th share of 53 Kanals and 19 Marlas comprising Khata No. 363/1620. Baljit Singh complainant in complaint No. 74 is in cultivating possession of 4/45th share of land measuring 176 Kanals and 15 Marlas comprising Khata No. 357/1596 to 1602. Baltej Singh who is complainant in complaint No. 75 is owner and in cultivating possession of 13/1008th share of land measuring 445 Kanals and 15 Marlas comprising Khata No. 247/1073 and 1078 whereas Resham Singh complainant in complaint No. 76 is in cultivating possession of 24/315th share of land measuring 166 Kanals and 4 Marlas comprising Khata No. 414/2049 and 2054. Description of the land is as per Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 and the same is situated in the revenue limits of village Jandanwala, Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> 3. Opposite parties had got pasted pamphlets in the area of District Bathinda including village Jandanwala through which they had induced farmers to sow Research Hybrid Cotton Seeds manufactured by opposite party No.1 as they are duly researched seeds and yield is 16 to 18 Quintals per acre and further that they are anti-insects. Pests do not affect them. Opposite party No. 2 is the authorised dealer of opposite party No. 1. Believing the tall claims made by the opposite parties regarding the seeds, complainants in complaints No. 71 to 76 purchased two, one, ten, three, two and three boxes of Cotton Seeds respectively manufactured by opposite party No.1 from opposite party No. 2 for consideration of Rs.1,500/-, Rs.750/-, Rs.7,500/-, Rs.2,250/-, Rs.1,500/- and Rs. 2,250/- respectively @ Rs.750/- per box. Cotton seeds were sown by them in their above mentioned fields by way of taking proper precautions. Plants became fully developed but they did not bear bolls. Opposite party No. 2 was approached. Its representative had visited the fields. Assurance was given that everything would be alright and the plants would definitely bear flowers/bolls as per pamphlets but to no effect. Opposite parties did not redress their grievances. Complainants moved applications to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, S.H.O Police Station Nehianwala and Agriculture Officer, Bathinda. Agriculture Officer had inspected the cotton crop fields. Vide letter dated 12.11.2007, Chief Agriculture Officer reported that the height of the plants was from 10 to 12 feet but they did not have flowers/bolls. He reported 100% damage to the crop in the fields. complainants allege that loss has been caused to them due to the poor quality of the seeds supplied by the opposite parties by way of giving false assurances. Opposite party No. 2 was again requested to compensate each of them to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- but in vain. They further allege that act and conduct of the opposite parties have caused them mental tension, agony, harassment, botheration, humiliation and loss to their reputation. Accordingly, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.<br /> 4. Opposite party No. 1 filed its version in all the cases taking legal objections that complainants are not consumers; complaints are not maintainable in the present form; complainants have no locus-standi and cause of action to file them; they themselves are negligent as they did not take care of their alleged land/crop properly; they have concealed material facts from this Forum; there is no privity of contract between it and the complainants; complicated questions of law and facts are involved which require oral and documentary evidence as well as lengthy cross examination of witnesses which is not possible in summary procedure before this Forum and the remedy lies with Civil Court; opposite party No. 2 had sold seeds for and on its behalf in sealed packing. At the time of selling the seeds, same were sold specifically giving instructions in pamphlets for sowing, caring, watering, maintaining and looking after etc. Complainants have not followed the instructions and guidelines for the growth of crop and bolls. In the pamphlets, there is specific mention that the farmers should cut the parts of the plants beyond the height of 5 to 6 feet for proper/good results. Complainants did not follow this instruction and allowed the plants to grow from 10 to 12 feet; there is no DNA test or expert opinion regarding the alleged loss to the crop; the fields were not weed free and fertilizer and pesticides treatment was not followed by the complainants; complaints have been filed to spoil its reputation. Moreover, yield is subject to climatic conditions. Complainants have not specifically mentioned in which specific portion/Khasra numbers crop was sown and under which capacity compensation has been claimed by them. It admits that it had got pasted pamphlets to sow Research Hybrid Cotton Seeds packed and marketed by it. No intimation regarding the loss to the crop was given to it. Complainants and their companions namely Resham Singh, Jagjit, Gurtej Singh, Baljit Singh, Baltej Singh and Sukhdev Singh have hatched a conspiracy to harass and humiliate it. It denies the remaining averments in the complaints.<br /> 5. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply in all the cases taking almost the same objections as have been raised by opposite party No.1. According to it, complainant Dalbara Singh in complaint No. 71 is neither the owner nor in possession of the land. Pamphlets were got pasted for the farmers. It is the authorised dealer/agent of opposite party No.1. It admits that cotton seeds were purchased by the complainants from it in sealed packing. Complainants did not follow the instructions mentioned in the pamphlets published by opposite party No.1. Alleged loss, if any, is due to their own negligence, act and conduct. If any deficiency is found, the same is attributable to opposite party No.1. Plants were allowed to grow upto the height of 10 to 12 feet, whereas they were required to be cut after they attained the height of 5 to 6 feet for getting good results. It does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 6. In support of their allegations and averments in the complaints, complainants have submitted their own affidavits which have been exhibited as Ex.C.1 in each complaint, photocopy of FIR dated 27.11.2007 (Ex.C.2), photocopy of Certificate dated 5.10.2007 (Ex.C.3), photocopy of Khasra Gardwari (Ex.C.4), photocopy of invoice (Ex.C.6) and photocopy of Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 (Ex.C.7).<br /> 7. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed in all the cases on affidavits of S/Sh. Deljit Singh Managing Director of opposite party No. 1,Pardeep Grewal, Proprietor of opposite party No.2, Jaspreet Singh & Inderjit Singh which have been exhibited as Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.3 to 5 respectively in each complaint, photocopy of pamphlet (Ex.R.2), photocopies of bills dated 5.6.2007 (Ex.R.6 & Ex.R.7), photocopy of Certificate dated 19.3.2007 (Ex.R.8), photocopy of affidavit dated 6.3.2007 of Sh. Deljit Singh (Ex.R.9) and photocopy of pamphlet (Ex.R.10).<br /> 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 9. One of the legal objection taken by the opposite parties is that complainants are not consumers. Regarding complaint No. 71, submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that his father Nazar Singh is the owner and in possession of the land and as such, Dalbara Singh is not consumer. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the complainants argued that facts and circumstances of the cases bring the complainants within the purview of definition of consumer.<br /> 11. We have considered the respective submissions and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the complainants. Purchase of the Cotton Seeds manufactured by opposite party No. 1 from opposite party No. 2 is not in dispute. Even otherwise, copies of the invoices placed on record by the complainants in the complaints clinch the matter and conclusion is that cotton seeds were purchased by them for consideration and as such, they are consumers. For this, we get support from the observations of Hon'ble State Commission of Karnataka in the case of Assistant Manager (Admn.), Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.Ltd. Vs. S.V Badagoudara & Ors.-1(1994)CPJ-384. Complainant Dalbara Singh purchased cotton seeds from opposite party No.2. Mere fact that owner of the land is his father is no ground to hold that cotton seeds purchased by him were not sown in that land. Since, he purchased the seeds and they were sown in the land, may be of his father, Dalbara Singh is consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> 12. Learned counsel for the opposite parties vociferously argued that there is non-compliance of Section 13 (1)(c) of the Act as seeds were not got analysed by the complainants from any laboratory to prove that they were sub-standard or of poor quality and as such, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established. <br /> 13. Learned counsel for the complainants submitted that entire quantity of seeds purchased by the complainants was sown in the fields and as such, the question of getting the seeds analysed from any laboratory, does not arise.<br /> 14. After scrutinizing the evidence on the record and considering the rival contentions, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned counsel for the complainants. Farmer is not obliged to keep any part of seeds foreseeing such a contingency. He purchases the seeds in good faith. The seeds are expensive. Farmers use the last grain for use in the field. If any quantity of the same seeds was with the opposite parties, they could get it tested which has not been done. Since, it was not possible for the complainants to get the seeds analysed, section 13(1)(c) becomes inapplicable. For this, we are fortified by the observations of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Shri Rama Enterprises and another Vs. Venkat Reddy-2004(1)JRC-293.<br /> 15. Contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in these cases which require to be proved by leading oral and documentary evidence and lengthy cross examination of witnesses and as such, this Forum in summary proceedings cannot decide this complaint and the appropriate remedy, if any, is with the Civil Court, is not tenable in view of the observations of their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of CCI Chambers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd.-III(2003)CPJ-9(SC) in which it has been held that merely because recording of evidence is required or some questions of law and facts arise which need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the door of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved. Similar view has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.J. Merchants Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi-III(2002)CPJ-8 (S.C.). Moreover, it is worth mentioning that parties have closed their evidence of their own. It was not brought to our notice that some other evidence is required which could not be led by them before this Forum in summary proceedings. Hence, the objection is not entertainable.<br /> 16. In the affidavits Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.3 of S/Sh. Deljit Singh Managing Director of opposite party No. 1 and Pradeep Grewal Proprietor of opposite party No. 2 respectively plea has been taken that complainants have not mentioned specific portion/Khasra numbers which they are cultivating. Complainants have given the description of the land by way of giving area and Khata numbers as per Jamabandi for the year 2004-05. Matter stands clinched with the copies of the Jamabandies and the Khasra Girdwaries which have been placed and proved on record by them. They show Khasra numbers as well in which cotton crop was sown. Hence, opposite parties cannot wriggle out of the situation merely on the ground that specific Khasra numbers have not been mentioned in the complaints, particularly when Khasra numbers in which cotton crop was sown by the complainants are out of the Khata numbers described in them.<br /> 17. An attempt has been made by the opposite parties by way of proving affidavits Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.3 that relevant instructions for sowing of seeds and growth of the plants were not followed and the alleged loss, if any, is on account of the negligence of the complainants. It is further their version that Chief Agriculture Officer in his report, copy of which is Ex.C.6, has recorded the height of the cotton plants as 10 to 12 feet but as per instructions, farmers were required to cut the plants beyond the height of 5 to 6 feet for proper/good crop and that they allowed the plants to grow upto 10 to 12 feet. On the aspect of taking proper precautions, the affidavits Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.3 stand amply rebutted with the affidavits of the complainants. There was no complaint about the germination of the seeds and the growth of the plants. Had the complainants not taken proper precautions, the question of proper germination and growth of the plants, did not arise. Any lapse in taking the precautions on the part of the complainants could lead to diseases to the plants. It is not the case of the complainants nor of the opposite parties that plants were affected by diseases. Chief Agriculture Officer has also reported that the cotton plants were free from any disease. It further gives strength to the story of the complainants. No-doubt, in the copy EX.R.10 of the pamphlet, one of the instruction is that farmers should cut the plants beyond the height of 5/6 feet for getting more yield. From this conclusion cannot be arrived at that if the plants attain the height of 10 to 12 feet, they would bear no bolls. Cutting of the plants beyond the height of 5/6 feet is only with regard to getting more yield. Opposite parties cannot evade their liability on this ground, particularly when there is nothing in the pamphlet to the effect that if the height goes beyond 5.5 feet, the plants would bear no bolls and they would not be responsible. In this case, the crop in the fields of the complainants was bearing flowers and they had fallen. There were no bolls with the plants due to which complainant suffered 100% damage to their crop. When no major lapse on the part of the complainants is established regarding the growth and care of the plants and opposite parties have undertaken that the yield per acre would be 13 to 16 quintals and damage is 100%, the same is attributable to the poor quality of seeds supplied by opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No.2. Stance that seeds were of poor quality and sub-standard gets further strength from the fact that several other farmers have also got registered criminal case regarding this matter and copy of the FIR is Ex.C.2. Sh. Deljit Singh Managing Director of opposite party No. 1 issued certificate dated 5.10.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.3. From this certificate, inference is that opposite party No. 1 has admitted in a way that the cotton plants were not bearing bolls. Opposite party No. 1 had made request to all the farmers of the Punjab to wait for 30 to 60 days more and the results would be good. Opposite party No. 1 further undertook that in case the flowers do not yield to bolls and the bolls do not lead to cotton after this period, it would provide compensation to the farmers. Opposite parties have not established that the cotton crop of the complainants had started bearing bolls and they were leading to cotton. To the contrary, there is positive evidence of the complainants that cotton crop in their fields was not having bolls and there was 100% loss/damage to the crop. Contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that specific Khasra numbers of the fields have not been mentioned by the Chief Agriculture Officer in the report, copy of which is Ex.C.6, assumes no significance in the facts and circumstances of these cases. Complainants have given the description of the land in their complaints. They have also brought on record copies of the Jamabandies and the Khasra Girdwaries in which the cotton crop was sown. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the complainants had sown seeds in some other fields or that they did not sow the seeds purchased by them in the fields. To the contrary, there are affidavits of all the complainants that seeds purchased by them were sown by them in their fields. There is no previous illwill or enmity of the complainants with the opposite parties. In these circumstances, there was no occasion with them to get other fields inspected from the officer of the Agricultural Department. Similarly, there is nothing before us to show the interestedness of the Chief Agriculture Officer to give report in favour of the complainants. An attempt has been made by the opposite parties to disprove the version of the complainants by way of submitting affidavits EX.R.4 & Ex.R.5 of S/Sh. Jaspreet Singh and Inderjit Singh residents of village Chak Ram Singh Wala and copies of the invoices EX.R.6 & Ex.R.7 showing that they had purchased same cotton seeds from opposite party No. 2. In the affidavits Ex.R.4 & Ex.R.5, S/Sh. Jaspreet Singh and Inderjit Singh have stated that they had purchased Gill Seeds of cotton from opposite party No. 2 and they were of superior and high standard. There was proper germination and their land gave yield of 42 mounds per acre. From the facts, circumstances and the evidence on the record, it appears that the affidavits of S/Sh. Jaspreet Singh and Inderjit Singh have been procured by the opposite parties in order to evade their liability for deficiency in rendering service to the complainants. Invoices copies of which are Ex.R.6 and Ex.R.7 appear fabricated. Today all the complainants have brought on record the original invoices in their favour. Each of the invoice bears bill No. Bill numbers in favour of Dalbara Singh, Baljit Singh, Jagjit Singh, Resham Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Baltej Singh are 100, 63,72, 76,78 and 98 respectively. There is no bill number on the copies of the invoices Ex.R.6 & Ex.R.7 in favour of S/Sh. Jaspreet Singh and Inderjit Singh respectively. Opposite parties did not muster courage to produce the original of Ex.R.6 and Ex.R.7 before us. Ex.R.4 and Ex.R.5 do not depict the particulars of the fields and their area in which cotton crop was sown by S/Sh. Jaspreet Singh and Inderjit Singh. They have not mentioned the total produce of their fields and the J Forms showing the sale of their crop.<br /> 18. In the pamphlet of opposite party No.1, it has been made clear that with the sowing of Tej F-1 Research Hybrid Cotton Seeds, the yield of cotton per acre would be 13 to 16 quintals. Evidence does not establish any major lapse on the part of the complainants in obtaining atleast normal produce from the cotton crop in their fields. Keeping all the relevant facts, circumstances and the pros and cones of this case in view, no other conclusion can be arrived at than the one that the cotton crop in the fields of the complainants did not bear bolls due to the poor quality of seeds manufactured by opposite party No. 1 and supplied by opposite party No.2. Hence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties is writ large. When it is so, complainants have the locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaints and they are maintainable.<br /> 19. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainants and from whom. Complainants claim compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- in each complaint. In the affidavits of the complainants in Consumer Complaints No. 71 to 76, they state that during the last year, these fields yielded produce approximately of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.75,000/-, Rs.50,000, Rs.38,000/- and Rs. 56,000/- respectively. Loss/damage to the crop has been assessed by the Chief Agriculture Officer as 100%. Complainants must have undergone mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation. Facts and circumstances warrant that compensation be awarded to the complainants in lumpsum. Keeping in view the mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation which complainants must have undergone, the area in which seeds were shown and all other relevant facts and circumstances, we are of the view that ends of justice would meet if direction is given to the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally Rs.50,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.35,000/-, Rs.25,000/-,<br /> Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- to the complainants in complaints No. 71 to 76 respectively. Regarding joint and several liability, we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Ashok Khan Vs. Abdul Karim & others-2005 CTJ-1207 (CP)(NCDRC) in which it has been held that both dealer and manufacturer are jointly and severally liable to the consumer.<br /> 20. In the result, complaints are partly accepted against the opposite parties with costs of RS.1,000/- in each complaint. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Pay Rs.50,000/- to complainant Dalbara Singh in Consumer Complaint No. 71 dated 10.3.2008.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs. 20,000/- to Sukhdev Singh complainant in Consumer Complaint No. 72 dated 10.3.2008.<br /> ( iii ) Pay Rs. 35,000/- to complainant Jagjit Singh in Consumer Complaint No. 73 dated 10.3.2008.<br /> ( iv ) Pay Rs. 25,000/- to Baljit Singh complainant in Consumer complaint No. 74 dated 10.3.2008.<br /> ( v ) Pay Rs. 10,000/- to Baltej Singh complainant in Consumer Complaint No. 75 dated 10.3.2008.<br /> ( vi ) Pay Rs. 20,000/- to complainant Resham Singh in Consumer Complaint No. 76 dated 10.3.2008.<br /> ( vii ) Liability of the opposite parties to pay the amount is joint as well as several.<br /> ( viii) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 21. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free<br /> of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 27.6.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member <br /> 'bsg'