PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 07.08.2013 in Appeal No. A/99/1257 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur Circuit Bench, Maharashtra (in short, ‘State Commission’). The State Commission partly allowed the Appeal filed against the order in Consumer Complaint No. 484 of 1992 dated 18.05.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur in short, ‘District Forum’).

1. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Shri Amol Lokesh Rao Motghare, started Poultry farm as ‘self-employment’, for his livelihood, since 1991. He purchased ‘Gold Mohur Brand Poultry Feed’ manufactured by Hindustan Unilever Ltd., the OP-1, through OPs 2 to 5, the local dealers of the ‘Gold Mohur Brand Poultry Feed’. The OP advertised that ‘if it is given to the birds, greater yield and profits are received in the poultry farm’ but after giving the said feed, several birds started losing their weight and died because of presence of Aflatoxin-B1, in high percentage. The post mortem of the dead birds, was performed by Veterinary doctor. The feed was sent for analysis to the appropriate laboratory. The post mortem and the chemical analysis revealed the death of birds was due to Aflatoxin-B in higher concentrations.  The opposite parties turned deaf ears towards the several representations made by the complainant.  Hence, the complainant filed a complaint in August 1992 before the District Forum for total amount of Rs.97,527/- towards compensation, metal agony and cost.

1. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, also dismissed similar two complaints No.158/1992 and 159/1992.
2.   Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred first appeal before the State Commission, Maharashtra.   The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- with interest @9% per annum, along with Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs from the date of complaint till its realisation.
3.   Aggrieved by that order of State Commission, the complainant preferred this revision petition with the main grouse of the complainant was that he was deprived of constitutional rights and the opposite parties were indulged unfair trade practice, which caused harassment to him for the last 21 years.  He argued that the competent authority and the BIS have stated that, 20 mcg/kg is toxic level of Aflatoxin B1 in the poultry feed.
4. The complainant present in person vehemently argued, that “manufacture and sale of toxic poultry feed of opposite party is more dangerous than the terrorist activity like recent terrorist activity on 26/11 in Mumbai.  In this activity at least deaths and injured people can be counted and immediate redressal to them is possible but in this activity deaths, injuries & sufferings to innocent people are hidden and countless.  Even otherwise manufacture & Sale of toxic feed declared by the competent authority is prohibited by law and should have been restricted with punishment immediately under Section 13 & 14 of the C.P. Act.”
5. He further submitted that, the opposite parties are indulging in false propaganda about his feed violated the Indian Standard due to this toxic feed, which is reproduced as under:

“this toxic feed of opposite party resulted in destroying the poultry farming business, the only source of livelihood of appellant started for self employment, inflicted tremendous financial torture humiliation, harassment for the last 21 years from 21.8.1992 till date depriving & denying the right of Appellant to seek protection & justice prescribed under C.P. Act.”

1. During the course of arguments, we have given an opportunity to both the parties to resolve this matter by amicable settlement.  The complainant denied, submitted that the compensation awarded by State Commission is very meagre.  He deserves higher compensation at the tune of crores due the suffering for the last 21 years.
2. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the feed containing Aflotoxin upto 500 ppb is permissible.  The Complainant failed to prove that the birds had died due to feed containing higher percentage of Aflatoxin-B1. It is also observed that clause 4.6 of Indian Standard Poultry Feeds Specification (IV revision) postulates that Aflatoxin-B limit in the poultry feed should not exceed 500 mcg/kg/ppb and that the Complainant has not produced any evidence except the third revision to prove Aflatoxin-B1 limit of 20-60 pbbs can caused death of birds. It is also observed that as third revision and fourth revision show different standards, it was incumbent on the Complainant to prove that his birds died due to excess limit of Aflatoxin –B1 but they have also failed to prove that only Gold Mohur Feeds were given to their birds. As per the evidence of witness No.3 on behalf of OP-1 Dr.Ajinkya supports that the PM findings were suggestive of viral infections (i) infectious burger disease IBD (ii) Inclusion Body of Hepatitis (IBH) and (iii) Ranikhet.
3. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the opposite party the death of birds was not totally due to the toxicity of feed, but it was due to viral infection and diseases of birds. If the feed is toxic, then entire lot of birds should have died, but in the instant case only few birds were died. The complainant claimed Rs.46,487/- on account of dead birds, State Commission considered this point and passed a well-reasoned order. The complainant claimed that he is entitled to cost of Rs.1,22,68,375/- towards the frequent seeking of adjournments by OP-1 to 5, which caused inordinate delay in adjudication the complaint. But, we are of considered view that, complainant won’t deserve for enhanced compensation, because the State Commission awarded just and proper compensation from 21.08.1992. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs..