NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/650/2010

DR. RANJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

GODREJ AGROVET LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

12 Mar 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 650 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 18/11/2009 in Appeal No. 1625/2003 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. DR. RANJIT SINGHResident of Behind Arora Rice MillAbhor RoadMuktsar ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. GODREJ AGROVET LTD.Through its Manager,C-4146, Facal Point,Khanna, Ludhiana2. B.R. TRADING CO.Through its ManagerTibbi Sahib RoadMuktsar3. NARINDER SINGH PHARMACISTPartner, B. R. Trading Co.Tibbi Sahib RoadMuktsar ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 12 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard the petitioner in person. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 18.11.09 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1625/03. By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the original opposite parties, M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd. and M/s. B.R.Trading Co. against the order dated 30.06.03 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar in complaint no. 74/02 and as a consequence dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/ petitioner. The main reason given by the State Commission for ..2.. allowing the appeal and dismissing the complaint appears in para no. 29 of the impugned order which reads as under :- “However, the statement of Dr. Gagandeep Singh, Department of Veterinary Pathology, PAU, Ludhiana does not help the respondent. He had suspected the disease by which the birds died to be mycotoxicosis. The sample of the feed was got tested but this report indicate negative for micotoxins. He repeatedly deposed that the mycotoxins were not found in the same feed. Even the report, Ex. C6 does not talk of mycotoxicosis nor the report Ex.C7 or Ex.C8 or Ex.C8A. Therefore, the respondent could not produce any evidence to show if the poultry feed sold by the appellants to the respondent was the cause of death of the birds in his poultry farm. “ Having considered the matter, we are of the view that on the face of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material brought on record, more particularly, the report which was received from the Department of Veterinary Pathology, PAU, Ludhiana, the finding so recorded by the State Commission is eminently justified and calls for no interference. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.


......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER
......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER