BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.165/15.

Date of instt.: 03.08.2015.

                                                        Date of Decision: 01.12.2015.

M/s. Jasbir Poultry Farm through its proprietor Jasbir Singh S/o Sh. Raj Singh, R/o Village Malikpur, Tehsil Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

M/s. Sona Gold Agro Chem (p) Ltd. Village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Gannaur, Distt. Sonepat through its prop./partner.

..………OP.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

 Present :        Sh. Ashok Gautam, Advocate for complainant.

                         OP already exparte.

                         ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased 150 bags of poultry feeds from the Op vide bill No.1585 dt. 08.06.2015 to the tune of Rs.2,75,400/-.  It is alleged that out of 150 bags of poultry feeds, 30 bags were of pre starter and when this feed was given to the cheeks, then after sometime they fell ill and suffered from loose motion and due to this reason, more than 19000 cheeks died.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op to compensate him but the Op put off the complainant and did not compensate him, then the complainant sent the sample of the feed i.e. pre starter and the lab gave the report dt. 29.06.2015 that the salt was 25.78% and crude protein was 16.42% in the feed.  In this way, the quantity of salt in the feed was too excessive and the quantity of crude protein was less and due to that reason, all the cheeks of the complainant died.  This act of Op amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint is filed.  

2.     Upon notice, the Op did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 18.09.2015.

3.     The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence on 08.10.2015.     

4.     We have heard the ld. counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant purchased 150 bags of poultry feeds from the Op vide bill No.1585 dt. 08.06.2015 to the tune of Rs.2,75,400/-.  He further argued that that out of 150 bags of poultry feeds, 30 bags were of pre starter and when this feed was given to the cheeks, then after sometime they fell ill and suffered from loose motion and due to this reason, more than 19000 cheeks died.

6.     Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into any other controversy of the case, whether this Forum at Kaithal has jurisdiction to try the present complaint or not.  From the record, we found that the complainant purchased 150 bags of poultry feeds from M/s. Sona Gold Agro Chem (p) Ltd. Village Ram Nagar, Distt. Sonepat.  In view of the authority reported as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, this forum at Kaithal has no jurisdiction because in the said authority, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala-The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission.  According to Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Ops should, at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office in the jurisdiction of the Forum.  Secondly, the cause of action should arise within the limit of this Forum.  In the present case, neither the Op actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor the complainant has pleaded that how the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  No cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence, the Distt. Forum at Kaithal did not has jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.  So, the complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum does not lie.     

7.     In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the court/forum of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.01.12.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),   (Rajbir Singh), 

                        Member.       Member.