BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.321 of 2018.
Date of institution: 04.12.2018.
Date of decision:24.02.2020.
Ram Phal S/o Sh. Chatar Singh, age about 53 years, r/o Vill. Sajuma, Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Sandeep, Incharge, Haryana Seed Development Corporation, Kaithal, Sales Point, near New Grain Market, Police Post, Kaithal.
- Haryana Seed Development Corporation, through its Managing Director, Regd. Head Office, Bays No.3-6, Sector-2, Panchkula-134112.
- Mahender Singh Malik, Regional Manager, HSDC, Umri, Kurukshetra.
- Royal Crop Sciences (India), having Office at 98-A, IT Scheme No.24, NSM, Sanoli Road, Panipat Haryana-132103.
- Insecticide India Limited, having its Regd. Office at 401-402, Lusa Tower, Azadpur Commercial Complex Delhi-110033 through its Director Hari Chand Aggarwal.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Kabir Dhall, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Shamsher Singh, Advocate for the OP.No.1.
Sh. Ramesh Singh Dhull, Adv. for the Ops No.2 & 3.
Op No.4 given-up.
Op no.5 exparte.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant purchased the one packet of Tribune and two packets of Force-II 12 Kg. each from the Op No.1 on 03.10.2018 for the sum of Rs.410/- and Rs.360/- respectively for the said insecticide and fungicide. It is alleged that the complainant requested the Op No.1 to issue the bills of the said products upon which the Op No.1 flatly refused and became furious and threatened the complainant must go to Op No.3. The complainant left with no other option approached DDA Kaithal and moved an application dt. 08.10.2018 upon which DDA Kaithal directed the Op No.1 to issue the bills of purchased products upon which the Op No.1 issued false and bogus bill to the complainant with cuttings and overwriting. The complainant used the above medicines in his 2½ acre land but did not see any result and felt doubtful about the genuineness of above-sold products and when contacted in the market, he came to know that the Op No.1 is not authorized seller of product in question and is illegally selling the said products. The complainant further came to know that the sale of Force-Ii has not been authorized by the Haryana Govt. and Ops No.1 to 3 are deceiving the farmers by selling wrong products. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs No.1 to 3 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.5 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 21.01.209. The Op No.4 was given-up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement recorded on 07.08.2019. Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; jurisdiction; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint as there is no loss as alleged to the crops of complainant and he has duly submitted an application in this regard to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Haryana through C.M.Window, Kaithal; that the compliance of Section 13()(c) of C.P.Act, 1986 has not been made in the present case; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ops No.2 & 3 filed the joint reply and followed the same line as by Op No.1 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Annexure-R12 and Ops No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R11 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, the complainant alleged that he purchased the one packet of Tribune and two packets of Force-II 12 Kg. each from the Op No.1 on 03.10.2018 for the sum of Rs.410/- and Rs.360/- respectively for the said insecticide and fungicide as per Annexure-C1. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant requested the Op No.1 to issue the bills of the said products upon which the Op No.1 flatly refused and he stated that the complainant may approach to the Op No.3. He further contended that the complainant had approached DDA Kaithal and moved an application dt. 08.10.2018 upon which DDA Kaithal directed the Op No.1 to issue the bills of purchased products upon which the Op No.1 issued false and bogus bill to the complainant with cuttings and overwriting. He further contended that the sale of Force-II has not been authorized by the Haryana Govt. and the Ops No.1 to 3 are deceiving the farmers by selling wrong products. The another contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant has suffered huge loss in the crop due to spurious medicines sold by the Ops to the complainant.
8. It is clear from the Annexure-C3 that the complainant submitted an application to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Haryana through C.M.Window Kaithal for taking action against the Ops No.1 to 3 on the ground that the bill which was given by the Op No.1, they were not authorized to sell the pesticides mentioned in the bill nor approved from Haryana Govt. and they have given the above-said pesticides from some other shop and he further alleged that he had sprayed the pesticides in question on his crop but the same did not give the proper result and the same was spurious one. The said application was withdrawn by the complainant on 25.10.2018 with a written request to Hon’ble Chief Minsiter, Haryana attached with the Annexure-R5 and he has mentioned that he has no grievance with the employee of Ops. In the said request letter, he admitted that he purchased the pesticides in question through Op No.1 and after some days, the result of the pesticides was satisfactory and the salesman had helped him to obtain the pesticides from other shop although the pesticide was not in their stock and he moved the application Annexure-C3 due to feeling angry at that time, so, he has no grievance against any employee and his earlier complaint dt. 08.10.2018 may kindly be treated as cancelled. Moreover, the complainant has also failed to place on file any expert report of Agriculture Department or any prescribed Govt. Agency from which it could be proved that there was any defect or spurious in the pesticides sold by the Ops to the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the Op No.1 namely Sandeep Kumar, Incharge of Haryana Seed Development Corporation, Kaithal has given the wrong bill with cuttings and overwriting. We have perused the enquiry report Annexure-R11 wherein it has been reported by the committee consisting of two officers namely Ashok Kumar, Asstt. Marketing Officer and Sh. Kehar Singh Dabra, Seed Production Officers, Umri. They have enquired the matter regarding pesticides purchased by the complainant as-well-as cutting on the bill issued by Incharge of Haryana Seed Development Corporation, Kaithal and the committee found that the employee namely Sandeep Kumar has been newly appointed and the same is deputed on D.C. rate and due to insufficient knowledge and under the pressure of Sh. Satish Nehra, S.D.A.O., the said employee had given the receipt of purchased pesticides to the complainant despite the fact that there was no stock in the godown of Haryana Seed Development Corporation, Kaithal and thereafter, he cancelled the same. In this regard, during the pendency of present complaint, ld. Counsel for the complainant moved an application on 10.02.2020 due to cutting in the bill Annexure R-4 which was placed by the Ops in their evidence for initiating criminal action against the Ops No.1 to 3 for fabrication of false documents and using it as evidence mentioning therein that the Ops No.1 to 3 were not authorized to sell the Force-II product and they have illegally sold the spurious Force II medicine to the complainant and Op No.3 has tendered the copy of bill in question as Ex.C1 and Ex.R4 by forging and fabricating the same in collusion with the Op No.1 and complainant further alleged that the Ops have prepared the above-noted forged documents and have used the same before this Forum and prayed that the action may be taken against the wrong doers under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Reply of said applications was filed by the Ops No.1 to 3 separately. Op No.1 filed the reply mentioning therein that the application filed by the complainant is not maintainable and so, prayed for dismissal of application. The Ops No.2 & 3 filed the joint reply mentioning therein that the complainant himself admitted in the inquiry that he has not suffered any loss due to alleged insecticide and so, prayed for dismissal of application. Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 has placed reliance upon the law laid down in order passed by Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Commission, Chennai in case titled as V. Amutha Vs. S.Swamikannu (Dr), bearing C.M.P. No.797 of 2004 in A.P.No.434 of 2000 and A.P.88 of 2001, date of decision: 05.05.2005 reported in 2006(1) CPJ page 205, wherein in para No.7, it has been mentioned that The Supreme Court has held in the decision reported in 1998(2) SCC 493, that it must be held that “the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court”. It also held that “the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodial legis.” But, here there is nothing on record to suggest nor any materials to hold that assuming there are corrections and those corrections are fabrications, they were done while the documents were in the custody of the Court. On the other hand, even in the affidavit filed by the complainant, it is not stated that the document was tampered with and fabricated while it was in the custody of the Court or after it was produced into Court. Therefore, in such circumstances, we cannot now presume in the absence of any prima facie materials that the so called corrections and forgery were committed when they were in the custody of the Court. We have perused the bill Annexure-C1. There is cutting in the date only. In Annexure-R4 there is cutting as-well-as cancellation mark found and bill number i.e.2307 in both the bills are the same. The enquiry committee has given the specific finding mentioned above and clarified the cutting on the bills. We are fully satisfied with the enquiry report Annexure-R11 given by the two officers mentioned above. The complainant has failed to rebut the enquiry report and there is no explanation as to why he withdrew the complaint filed against the Ops.No.1 to 3. We are also of the view that the document Annexure-R4 was not prepared in the Court and it was prepared outside the premises of Court. Hence, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1998(2) SCC 493, the same is fully applicable to the facts of present case. Therefore, the application filed by the complainant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant has failed to prove his case.
9. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:24.02.2020.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
