Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/31/2015

Jiwan lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pepsi Co India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh BS Randhawa

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint No. 31 of 2015

                                           Date of institution : 16/03/2015                                                  Date of decision    : 24.02.2016

Jiwan Lal son of Sh. Tarsem Lal, resident of village Bhatton, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1.         Pepsi Co. India Holding Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at 3B, DLF Corporate Park, Qutab Enclave, Phase-III, Gurgaon 122002,(Haryana) through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

2.         Pepsi Co. India Holding Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its office at No.54, Lower Ground Floor, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

3.         Pepsi Co. India Holding Private Limited, Local Office at Cold Store, Anian Road, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized Agent.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                   

    Smt. Veena Chahal, Member    

Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member                                                   

Present :  None for the complainant.                                                                Sh. Damandeep Singh, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Jiwan Lal son of Sh. Tarsem Lal, resident of village Bhatton, Tehsil Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant executed a Seed Tubers Multiplication agreement with OPs through its authorized agent at Amloh and as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, he deposited a sum of Rs.81,000/- in the bank account of the OPs. The OPs supplied 160 bags of ATL Potato Seed for 5 acres.  Out of said 160 bags, 33 bags were damaged and one of which was not able to grow. The complainant immediately intimated the authorized agent of the OPs regarding the said damage. The agent assured that the amount of Rs.21,000/- shall be deducted from the price of said 160 bags and the account will be settled when the complainant will supply the potatoes. It is further stated that as per clause 3.2 of the agreement, the OPs may also provide additional incentive to the grower/complainant for meeting the chemical kit and weather insurance compliance at rates specified in Annexure’A’.  Thereafter the complainant supplied a total number of 696 bags of 50 Kg each i.e.348 quintals to the OPs on different dates but the OPs have made less payment than the actual payment.    As per annexure ‘A’ of terms and conditions the OPs are bound to pay rupees One per kg as drip irrigation incentive i.e. Rs.34,800/- and OPs are also liable to pay the amount of 33 bags, which were in damaged condition and were unable to grow, i.e. Rs.21,000/-. But the OPs have not refunded the said amounts. The OPs also not paid Rs.3480/- as insurance package incentive and Rs.1600/- as labour of 160 bags i.e. Rs.10 per bag. The complainant so many times requested the OPs to pay the amount but OPs remained putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to pay the same, which amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint, for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.75,472/- to the complainant along with interest, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.15,000/- as litigation costs.
3.           The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is wholly false, frivolous and vexations; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, as he purchased the goods for the commercial use only. As regards to the facts of the complaint, they stated that an amount of Rs.9,655/- was paid by the OPs to the complainant on 27.11.2012 against the seeds sold on 13.10.2012 on account of damaged seeds and the amount was duly accepted by the complainant. It is further stated that the drip irrigation incentives were given only to those farmers who had provided this facility in their farms. The complainant has not provided such facility in his farm hence this incentive was not provided to him. Moreover, the insurance package was offered to those farmers who had got done the crop insurance from the company’s designated insurer. The complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement, hence he cannot claim benefit of the insurance incentive. The alleged amount of Rs.1600/- was given to the complainant towards the labour/clearing charges of 160 bags at the rate of Rs.10 per bag. The complainant is not entitled for any interest thereupon as the due amount of Rs.11,255/- has already been paid to him, for which he was duly entitled. Hence, there is not deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.           In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, material lifting receipts and  potato seed procurement advice Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-7, copy of agreement Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Lokesh Pandey Ex. OP-1, true copies of potato seed procurement advice Ex. OP-2 to OP-4, true copy of agreement Ex. OP-5, true copies of material lifting receipts Ex. OP-6 to OP-8, true copy of seed rottage/return approval Ex. OP-9 and true copy of account statement Ex. OP-10 and closed the evidence.
5.           The complainant has pleaded in his complaint that he supplied a total number of 696 bags of 50 Kg each i.e.348 quintals to the OPs on different dates but the OPs have made less payment than the actual payment.    As per annexure ‘A’ of terms and conditions, the OPs are bound to pay Rupees One per kg as drip irrigation incentive i.e. Rs.34,800/- and OPs are also liable to pay the amount of 33 bags, which were in a damaged condition and unable to grow, i.e. Rs.21,000/-. But the OPs have not refunded the said amounts. The OPs also not paid Rs.3480/- as insurance package incentive and Rs.1600/- as labour of 160 bags i.e. Rs.10 per bag. He has also pleaded that the complainant had several times approached the OPs with regard to his grievances but the same OPs are not ready to redress them.
6.           On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has denied all the allegations of the complainant. He submitted that the complainant has not placed on record any material document to prove, as to when the complainant approached the OPs for redressal of his grievances. He further submitted that the present complaint is premature, as the OPs are always ready and willing to accommodate their suppliers. The ld. counsel pleaded that it is evident from statements of accounts i.e Ex.OP-9 and Ex.OP-10, that the alleged payments had already been made to the complainant.
7.           We have heard the ld. counsel for the OPs and have gone through the pleadings, evidence, and written submissions as well as oral submissions on behalf of OPs. The complainant has failed to place on record any document, proving that the complainant had ever approached the Ops with regard to his grievances. Moreover the OPs have placed on record the statements of accounts i.e Ex.OP-9 and Ex.OP-10 in order to prove that the complainant had already received the disputed payments. The Ops are also ready and willing to redress any of the grievances, if the complainant approaches them for redressal of the same.
8.           Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that it is established from the statements of accounts i.e Ex.OP-9 and Ex.OP-10 that the OPs had made the disputed payments to the complainant. The OPs have also showed their readiness and willingness to redress the grievances of the complainant in future, if the complainant approaches the OPs for the redressal of the same. Hence the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to approach the OPs, if the complainant feels his grievances have not been redressed by the OPs. Parties to bear their own cost.  

9.                   The arguments on the complaint were heard on  15.02.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:-24.02.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)                          President

 

(Veena Chahal)                        Member

 

(A.B.Aggarwal)                       Member