Haryana

StateCommission

A/286/2015

KHATRI FEEDS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJ SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI KANT

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      286 of 2015

Date of Institution:      25.03.2015

Date of Decision :       27.04.2016

 

Khatri Feeds Private Limited, Jagdishpur Road, near Rathdhana Mor, Village Rathdhana, Tehsil and District Sonipat, Haryana, through its Proprietor Brahmjit Khatri.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Raj Singh s/o Sh. Suraj Mal, Proprietor M/s Raj Singh, Poultry Farm, Village Rajlugarhi, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by :         Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Vikas Lochab, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Khatri Feeds Private Limited –Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated January 6^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.76 of 2012.

2.      Raj Singh-complainant/respondent, filed complaint with the averments that he purchased 5100 and 3060 chicks from Suguna Breeding Farm Limited, Jalandhar, on April 14^th and 17^th, 2010. The respondent also purchased poultry feed from the appellant-opposite party and that on account of defective poultry feed, the growth of Chicks was not proper. The respondent sold the chicks after 50 days which were under-weight, besides some of the chicks died. Thus, the respondent suffered loss on account of defective poultry feed and under-weight of chicks and heavy mortality to the extent of Rs.8,29,356/- besides that despite payment, some quantity of poultry feed was not supplied. Thus, the respondent sought compensation of Rs.13,34,574/- including Rs.10.00 lacs as loss of business.

3.      The opposite party/appellant, contested the complaint by filing reply stating that that there was no defect in the feed, rather the respondent had issued a cheque for payment towards the price of poultry feed which was dishonoured and after the appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the respondent made the payment at the final stage of the complaint. Thereafter, the matter being settled, the respondent filed instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint directing the opposite party/appellant as under:-

“….we hereby directed the respondent to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.ten lacs) in lump sum to the complainant for causing loss to the complainant, for supply of defective feed, for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary harassment, mental agony and under the head of litigation expenses. The respondent is directed to make the above said payment to the complainant 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 reailiation.”

 5.     While assailing the order of the District Forum, learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party has referred to cheque dated 10.09.2011 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent/complainant for Rs.4,50,040/- and Return Memo Report dated 12.09.2011 (Annexure-B), copy of complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Annexure-C). No evidence has been led by the respondent in support of his allegations that there was any defect in the poultry feed or that the chicks remained under-weight or that there was any mortality on account of defective feed. Mere version of the respondent cannot be treated as gospel truth unless and until supported by any cogent evidence.  The cheque was dishonoured on 12^th September, 2011, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed on 8^th November, 2011 and the instant complaint was filed on 14^th February, 2012. Had the complainant been really aggrieved of the quality of feed which was sold to him in April, 2010, he would have immediately approached Consumer Forum and not waited till filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

6.      For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant/opposite party against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 26.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL