Haryana

Sonipat

CC/254/2015

BIJENDER S/O JAI BHAGWAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S NAVA BHARATH FERTILIZERS LTTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MANNU MALIK

25 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.254 of 2015

                             Instituted on:31.07.2015

                             Date of order:25.02.2016

 

Bijender son of Jai Bhagwan son of Hardeva r/o village Lath, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.       

Versus

 

1.M/s Nava Bharath Fertilizers Ltd., 7-1-621/98-621/34 Opp. Sri Chaitanya College Sr Nagar Main road, Hyderabad through its General Manager.

2.Branch Manager, M/s Nava Bharath Fertilizers Ltd.,Br. Office Ist Floor, Sai GYM, Halwash Gate, near Bansilal Park, Luharu road, Bhiwani.

                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik, Advocate for Complainant.

           Sh. Sunil Khatri, Advocate for respondents.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that in the month of 1/2015, the respondents held a camp in the village Lath tehsil Gohana for the publicity and sale of their medicines required for the removal of germiside and the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.100/- with the respondent no.2 through their agent namely Mandeep vide order no.HR-BW-G-25421 dated 12.1.2015 for the supply of such medicine of total amount of Rs.1455/-  and it was agreed that the balance amount will be paid to the respondents on receipt of the medicine, but the respondents have failed to supply such medicine to the complainant and due to this, the complainant could not use other medicines and his potato crop was fully damaged.  The complainant has moved an application before the Distt. Horticulture Officer Sonepat  and the officers of Horticulture Department has inspected the said crop and submitted their report dated 5.2.2015 in which it is clearly mentioned that potato crop has been damaged due to Ageta Ang Mari Rog and Pacheta Ang Mari Rog and due to this wrongful act of the respondents, the complainant has suffered a huge loss of Rs.8 lacs and also suffered unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have admitted that in the month of 1/2015, a company was held in village Lath for the publicity of their medicines and the complainant has deposited Rs.100/- with the respondent no.2 for the supply of Vinjume-L medicine for total amount of Rs.1455/-. But the respondents have denied the fact that the complainant has deposited the said amount for germicide medicine.  The respondent no.2 also never assured to supply the said Vinzyme-L medicine within one week.  Infact due to non-availability of Vinzyme-L medicine, the respondents could not supply the same to the complainant.  The medicine Vinzyme-L is not a germicide medicine.  The respondents are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant regarding damage of potato crop of the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the respondents as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        Both the parties have been heard.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.        In the present case, the respondents have admitted that in the month of 1/2015, a company was held in village Lath for the publicity of their medicines and the complainant has deposited Rs.100/- with the respondent no.2 for the supply of Vinjume-L medicine for total amount of Rs.1455/-. Infact due to non-availability of Vinzyme-L medicine, the respondents could not supply the same to the complainant.

          But their other stand is that the respondent no.2 never assured to supply the said Vinzyme-L medicine within one week.  The medicine Vinzyme-L is not a germicide medicine.  The respondents are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant regarding damage of potato crop of the complainant.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to non supply of the medicine by the respondents in time, he has not used any other medicine to protect his potato crop and due to this, the potato crop of the complainant was damaged thereby causing a huge loss to the tune of Rs.8 lacs to the complainant and the respondents are liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.8 lacs.

5.        After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent insurance company because the respondents have charged Rs.100/- from the complainant for the supply of  medicine though it was not useful for the removal of germicide.  But the complainant remained under the impression that the said medicine will be supplied by the respondents within a short period and due to this, he could not purchase any other medicine.  Thus, it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and we hereby direct the respondents to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.15000/- (Rs.fifteen thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The respondents are further directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy  of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

          File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)           (Nagender Singh)                    Member, DCDRF,             Member, DCDRF        President, DCDRF,

Sonepat.             Sonepat.             Sonepat.

 

ANNOUNCED 25.02.2016