In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/23/2023.
Date of filing: 07/02/2023. Date of Final Order: 03/05/2024.
Siddhartha Sankar Ghosal,
s/o Late Samerendra Nath Ghosal,
village- Chandanpur, Post- Jangipara,
Dist. Hooghly, PIN-712404. ……..complainant
-vs
- M/S Das & Co.,
Champadanga College Road,
Near Champadanga Bus Stand,
P.O. Champadanga, Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712401.
- Sri Sandip Das,
Proprietor M/S Das & Co.,
Champadanga College Road,
Near Champadanga Bus Stand,
P.O. Champadanga, Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712401.
- M/S Bhatti Biotech,
Bhatti Cold Storage, Bhatti Agricultural Farmer,
Village- Alipur, Post- Mithapur, Jalandhar, PIN- 144022.
- Mr. Dilsher Singh Bhatti,
Proprietor M/S Bhatti Biotech,
Bhatti Cold Storage, Bhatti Agricultural Farmer,
Village- Alipur, Post- Mithapur, Jalandhar, PIN- 144022.
……opposite parties
Before: President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member, Debasis Bhattacharya.
Member, Babita Chaudhuri.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant was purchased 5 bags of potato seed from the sales counter of op nos. 1 and 2 on 11.12.2019 of Rs. 5,450/- by cash for his personal use in agricultural purpose. Type of potato was Pukhraj and the seed of the said potato was very poor and substandard quality and it produces only 23 bags of inferior quality potato instead of 100 bags of potato for a standard production in the land around 43 satak and the complainant have complained to the (a) officer-in-charge, Jangipara P.S., (b) The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Jangipara Block, (c) the Block Development Officer, Jangipara Block, (d) The Superintendent of Police, Hooghly Rural District, (e) The Director General of Police, to draw an FIR against the ops dt. 11.3.2020 but they did nothing against the said complaint for FIR and also send the said letter of complain to the OC, Tarakeswas P.S. on 16.3.2020 and on 21.3.2020 the ops only paid Rs. 5450/- to the complainant as compensation and forced the complainant to withdraw the police complaint and the complainant send letters dt. 22.11.2020 to the ops praying for fair compensation but the letters returned back to the complaint unserved with remark door locked and unclaimed from the postal department and the petitioner also send the letter dated 22.11.2020 to the B.D.O, Jangipara Block on 15.12.2020, the Officer-in Charge, Jangipara Police Station on 15.12.2020, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Jangipara Block Development office on 15.12.2020. The Superintendent of police, Hooghly Rural District, P.O Kamarkundu, Dist-Hooghly dated on 22.11.2020 and the total production cost of the said cops was around Rs.30,000/- and the market price of the said cops was around Rs.130000/-.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- along with the upto date interest in tune of Rs. 18% per annum and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, tension, wastage of valuable time and money and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for his blockage of money and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agent of the complainant heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant has given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The questions involved in the above noted points of consideration are interlinked and/or interconnected with one another. For that reason and also for the interest of convenience of discussion all the above noted points of consideration are clubbed together and it cannot be for discussion jointly.
For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision and also for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of the fate of this case, there is necessity of scanning the materials of this case record. After making scrutiny of the materials of this case record this District Commission finds that plea adopted by the complainant side is that the OP-1&2 had supplied inferior quality of potato seeds and for that reason the production of potatoes in the land of the complainant was very miserable and he only received 23 bags of potatoes from 43 Satak of land. But in this regard it is very important to note that in course of trial the complainant has not taken any step for expert examination about the quality of potato seeds supplied by OP-1&2 and no such prayer has been filed by the complainant. In the absence of any expert opinion this District Commission finds no justified reasons to arrive at the decision that inferior quality of potato seeds were supplied by OP-1&2 to the complainant. Moreover in order to assess the total quantity of production of potatoes no local inspection commission has been prayed by the complainant. Without any such commission report or any other cogent document such as report of the local Agricultural Department or local newspaper publication, there is no scope before this District Commission to arrive at the decision that production of potatoes in the land of the complainant was of miserable condition. All these factors are clearly reflecting that the complainant has failed to prove his case in respect of all the issues and / or points of consideration framed in this case. So this District Commission has no other alternative but to dismiss this case.
In the result, it is accordingly,
Ordered
That this complaint case being no.23 of 2023 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
No order is passed as to cost.
Parties of this case are entitled to get a free copy of this judgment as early as possible.
Let this judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the official website of this District Commission.
