Punjab

Sangrur

CC/610/2017

Jasmail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahil Feeds Factory - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. G.S.Nandpuri

09 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

 

 

                                                                       Complaint No. 610

Instituted on:   20.11.2017

                                                                        Decided on:     09.07.2018

 

Jasmail Singh son of Darshan Singh, R/O Kartarpura Basti, Hareri Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

 

1.     Sahib Feeds Factory, near Indian Oil, Kanoi Road, Village Kheri, Tehsil & Distt. Sangrur through its owner/Managing Director.

2.     Charanjit Singh Chehal son of Amar Singh, partner/owner of Sahib Feeds Factory, near Indian Oil Kanoi Road, Village Kheri, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :      Shri Vinay Jindal,Adv. 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   Sarita Garg, Member      

ORDER:   

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Jasmail Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is running a diary farm of ten cows in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment.  The case of the complainant is that to fed the cows, he purchased   letti/feed from the OPs on 29.8.2017 in the shape of 12 bags of 50 Kg. each @ Rs.1848/- per quintal. The complainant also purchased cattle feed of 8 quintal @ Rs.1703/- per quintal on the same day and the Op gave a rough bill to the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that he started to give said letti/feed to his cows on the assurance of the Ops.  The case of the complainant is that after its use, the cows felt uncomfortable and did not give milk upto the quantity which the cows gave earlier. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant called the veterinary doctor, who started the medical treatment, but ultimately on 13.9.29017 one cow died. The cost of which was to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. The son of the complainant also got tested the sample of letti/feed on 15.9.2017 from Guru Angad Veterinary & Animal Science University, Ludhiana, who gave positive report that the said feed has poison i.e. positive Aflatoxin. The cow of the complainant died due to the defective cattle feed supplied by the Op. As such, he also moved application to the police for action against the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the cost of the dead cow i.e. Rs.60,000/- and has further sought refund of the amount of Rs.11088/- being the cost of letti/feed and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the Ops, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that this Forum has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts and the jurisdiction of this Forum is also disputed. On merits, it is stated that the OP is selling the product under the name and style of Sahib Feed Supreme, Gold, Transition and Calf grower. The OPs have also sold his Sahib Cattle feed to other customers, but has not received any complaint whatsoever of the feed. Further case of the OP is that it never sold the loose feed to any one. It is denied that the Ops are manufacturing letti, as letti and cattle feed are two different items.  It is stated further that an amount of Rs.52,720/- is due against the complainant and the present complaint is result of that balance against the complainant. It is stated further that the OP sold the product to various other customers, but no such complaint has ever been received from any of the customer.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 copy bond certificate  and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP  has produced Ex.Ops/1 to Ex.Ops/22 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant purchased letti/feed to fed his cow on 29.8.2017, but the allegations of the complainant are that the letti supplied to the complainant was defective one as it has positive aflatoxin salt, which is harmful to the cows.  This fact came to the knowledge of the complainant, when he got tested the sample of the letti/feed from the authorized laboratory.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that due to defective supply of letti/feed by the Ops, one of the cow died and due to this the complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.60,000/- (being the cost of the dead cow).  Further to support his allegations, the complainant has cited report dated 19.09.2017 issued by the Professor cum Had, Deptt. Of Vety. Microbiology, COVS, GADVASU, Ludhiana, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5, which clearly shows that the wheat letti and cattle feed contains positive Aflatoxin.  As such, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OP is deficient in service by supplying the defective letti and feed for his cattle and due to that one of the cow has died.   Further the complainant has produced on record the copy of estimate bill dated 30.5.2016 to support his contention.   Ex.C-10 is another estimate bill produced on record which is dated 29.8.2017 to establish that he purchased cattle feed.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the allegations leveled in the complaint are false and frivolous one and only to defame the reputation of the OP and further to avoid the payment of Rs.52,720/- which is due against the complainant, as is evident from the copy of statement of the complainant in the books of the Ops, Ex.OP-20.  There is no denial of the complainant either in the affidavit that there is no due against the complainant of the Ops.  It seems that it is a matter of dues of the Ops against the complainant.  Further to support the contention that the cow died due to defective feed or letti, the complainant has not produced on record any medical record, much less, post mortem report of the doctor to establish that the cow has died due to defective letti/feed. Further we have perused the report Ex.C-5, which seems to be not helpful to the case of the complainant as it nowhere mentions that what was the sample tested for whether it was of the Ops and further it is mentioned on the report that “not valid for legal purposes’.  Further perusal of the report shows that it nowhere figures what percentage of Aflatoxin is harmful to the animal.  Even the report is not signed by the Professor cum Head of the department.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the report Ex.C-5 is not at all helpful to the case of the complainant.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that the complainant even filed an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur and the inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of the Police and SHO Sunam, wherein the complainant took contradictory stands and that the inquiry was filed in favour of the Ops.  Further perusal of the file clearly reveals that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case of any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.

 

6.             So, in view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the complaint is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.  

Pronounced.

 

                July 9, 2018.

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                               

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                 Member