Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/18/104

CEO, JANPAD PANCHAYAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARSINGH BANJARA - Opp.Party(s)

SH.DEEPESH SHUKLA

09 May 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

FA No.98 / 2018.

 

 

M.P. State Agro India Development

Corporation Ltd.,

Head Quarter Panchanan Bhawan,

3^rd Floor, Malviya Nagar,

Bhopal (M.P.).                                                                       …. APPELLANT.

 

 

                        Versus

 

1.         Narsingh s/o Shri Lakhkha,

R/o Nai Abadi, Changeri Tehsil,

Malhargarh, District Mandsaur (M.P.).

 

2.         Chief Executive Officer,

Janpad Panchayat,

Malhargarh, District Mandsaur (M.P.).                 …. RESPONDENTS.

 

 

FA No.104 / 2018.

 

Chief Executive Officer,

Janpad Panchayat,

Malhargarh, District Mandsaur (M.P.).                                         …. APPELLANT.

 

 

                        Versus

 

1.         Narsingh s/o Shri Lakhkha,

R/o Nai Abadi, Changeri Tehsil,

Malhargarh, District Mandsaur (M.P.).

 

2.         M.P. State Agro India Development

Corporation Ltd.,

Head Quarter Panchanan Bhawan,

3^rd Floor, Malviya Nagar,

Bhopal (M.P.).                                                                       …. RESPONDENTS.

 

 

 

 

 

• 2 -

 

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

 

 

Date of           ORDER                                

Order                                                                                                

 

09.05.2022                Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant/ M.P. State Agro India Development Corporation Ltd.

                                    Shri Hitesh Ramavat, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 / complainant.

                                    Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/ Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Malhargarh, District Mandsaur.

                                    With consent heard finally.

                                    This order shall govern the disposal of both the appeals as the facts and the question of law involved in these appeals are identical.  For the sake of convenience facts are taken from Appeal No.98/2018.

                        2.         The aforesaidappeals arise out of the order dated 26.5.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandsaur (for short the “District Commission”) in CC No.84/2014 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the first respondent / complainant and directed the appellant and respondent no.2 / opposite parties to pay jointly and severally Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.1000/- towards costs.  The District Commission has also directed that in

 

• 3 -

 

case the amount is not paid within two months, the first respondent would be entitled for interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment.

                        3.         According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the finding recorded by the District Commission to the effect that the appellant had sold inferior quality of the lemon plants to the first respondent than for which the order was placed resulting into the fact that the crop of the lemon was not of inferior quality any profit as was expected by the first respondent / complainant could not be received resulting into loss to him.

                        4.         The District Commission after considering the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint as aforesaid.

                        5.         Having gone through the impugned order, we find that the District Commission has not properly assessed the evidence available on record and has not given any reasons as to how the figure of Rs.1,00,000/- towards award of compensation has been arrived at for the alleged loss suffered by the first respondent / complainant. 

                        6.         In the circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. 

7.         The matter is remanded to the District Commission for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.

 

• 4 -

 

8.         Needless to say that all questions relating to complaint and the stand taken by the party who had already filed reply os kept open and the District Commission shall decide the entire matter and the issues afresh in accordance with law.

                        9.         Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 8.6.2022.

                        8.         This order be retained in Appeal No.98/2018 and a copy of the same be kept in the record of Appeal No.104/2018.

 

 

(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)    (Shyam Sunder Bansal)     (Ashok Kumar Tiwari)

^{PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                    MEMBER}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phadke