Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/378

Jaspreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pragati Biotechnologies - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Singh

09 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                       378 of 2017

Date of Institution:            21.11.2017

Date of Decision :             9.04.2019

 

Jaspreet Singh aged about 35 years, son of Sukhdial Singh resident of Village Bhag Thala Kalan, Tehsil and District  Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Pragati Biotechnologies, Clonal Research and Production Centre, V and Post Office Dholbaha-144206, District Hoshiarpur (Punjab), through its authorised Signatory.
2. Pragati Biotechnologies, Clonal Research and Production Centre, H O 784, Urban Estate, Phase-2, Jallandhar, through its authorised signatory.
3. Pragati Biotechnologies, Clonal Research and Production Centre cum Sale Depot, Village Ghaniewala Near Panj Grain, Kotkapura-Bagha Purana Road, District Faridkot through its Sales Officer.

                         ....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:     Sh Gagandeep Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                 Sh Ravish Malhotra, Ld Counsel for OPs,

* * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

 

cc no.-378 of 2017

 

                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking direction to them to refund the excessive amount received from complainant and to pay Rs. One lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a small farmer and on assurance of OP-3, complainant purchased 120 Eucalyptus plants worth Rs.12/- each from OP-3 and paid Rs.1440/-for same. Complainant also purchased tree trays of Rs.300/-from OP-3 and OP-3 in turn issued receipt for total of Rs.1740/- against envoice no.8210 dated 22.02.2017. It is submitted that complainant succeeded in obtaining carbon copy of said envoice and found that OP-1 made entry for sum of Rs.1260 i.e at the rate of Rs.8/-per plant of eucalyptus. Op-3 charged Rs.12/-per plant and issued receipt but in reality they received excess amount of Rs.4/-for each plant and cheated the complainant. Moreover, complainant planted all the plants with great care and fully fertilized the same, but growth of said plants is not proper. All this amounts to deficiency in service and this act of OPs for charging over prices has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.11.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 

cc no.-378 of 2017

4                                                         OPs filed reply through counsel wherein took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and is based on baseless allegations. They have denied all the allegations of complainant being concocted ones and asserted that complainant is not their consumer and he has suppressed the true facts from this Forum and he has not come to the Forum with clean hands and is not entitled for any relief as sought by him. However, it is admitted that complainant purchased the said plants from OPs but specifically denied that they received any excess amount from complainant. Complainant was given receipt for the amount, which he paid to them. It is also denied that they ever assured complainant regarding said plant. It is further averred that OPs do not recommend fertilizers for one year. Thus, it is clear that complainant did not plant all the plants properly and was not aware about plantation of plants. There is no deficiency in service on their part as complainant did not hire their services for the process of plantation. Complainant himself is at fault in planting the plants in wrong manner and does not have proper knowledge about farming. Moreover, complainant never approached answering OPs regarding any grievance and even no excess amount is ever received from him. All the allegations levelled by complainant are false and frivolous and complaint filed by him is liable to be dismissed. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                          Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed the evidence.

 

            cc no.-378 of 2017

6                                                         To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajeshwar Dyal Singh Ex OP-1 and document Ex OP-2 and then closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                                   From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that he purchased 120 eucalyptus plants at the rate of Rs.12/-per plant from OP-3 against proper bill but in the carbon copy of same bill, he noticed that rate of each eucalyptus plant was mentioned at the rate of Rs.8/-. As per complainant, OPs charged Rs.1440/-from complainant for 120 eucalyptus plants at the rate of Rs.12/-per plant, but in reality, each plant was worth Rs.8/- and total amount for 120 plants comes to Rs.960/- and thus, OPs charged Rs. 480/-in excess from complainant, which caused harassment and mental agony to him and amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In reply, OPs stressed mainly on the point that  allegations levelled by complainant are totally false. However, it is admitted that on said date, complainant purchased said plants from him and sternly denied that there is any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

8                                                       Grievance of complainant is that OPs sold him 120 eucalyptus plants at the rate of Rs.12/-each but in reality, rate of each plant was only Rs.8/- and thus, OPs charged Rs.4/-in excess against every eucalyptus plant. To prove his pleadings, he has placed on record copy of bill dated 22.02.2017 Ex C-5 wherein it is clearly mentioned that rate of  120/-eucalyptus plants is Rs.1440/-i.e they sold eucalyptus plants to complainant at the rate of Rs.12/-per plant. Grievance of complainant is clear from the carbon copy of same

cc no.-378 of 2017

bill Ex C-4 that shows that each eucalyptus plant is sold at the rate of Rs.8/- and total amount for 120/- plants becomes Rs.960/-. Though both these bills are of same date and bear signatures of complainant, but there is variation in rate of plants in these bills. It is trade mal practice on the part of OPs in charging excess amount from complainant. OPs charged Rs.1440/-from complainant for 120 eucalyptus plants at the rate of R.12/-per plant but in their own copy they mentioned the rate of 120/-eucalyptus plants as Rs.960/-i.e Rs 8/-for each plant. Both these copies of same bill bear same date and same number i.e 8210 and dated 22.02.2017 respectively, but both are contrary to each other as rates of eucalyptus plants mentioned in these bills is quite different. On the contrary OPs have nothing to place on record in this regard to contradict the allegations of complainant. Charging of excess amount from complainant is trade mal practice and amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has produced cogent and sufficient evidence to prove his pleadings and documents produced by him are fully authentic and are beyond any doubt.

9                                                 From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence produced by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and therefore, present complaint is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to refund Rs.480/- the excess amount received from complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses incurred by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer

cc no.-378 of 2017

Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 9.04.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

          Member                               President