Haryana

Panipat

CC/21/42

Ajmer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UPL Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Ekta Bamel

06 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANIPAT
 
Complaint Case No. CC/21/42
( Date of Filing : 28 Jan 2021 )
 
1. Ajmer Singh
(age 43 years) S/o Sh. Rajpal Singh, R/o VPO Shahpur, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. UPL Limited
Registered Office 3-11, G.I.D.C. Vapi 396195, Gujarat.
2. SWAL CORPORATION LIMITED
Registered office UPL Limited, Readymoney Terrace, 167, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018, Maharashtra.
3. M/S SWAMI SEEDS CORPORATION
Shop No. 108, Shiv Chowk, New Sabzi Mandi, Sanoli Road, Panipat-132103.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Dr. J.R. Chauhan PRESIDENT
  Smt. Anita Dahiya MEMBER
  Dr. Suman Singh MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Ms. Ekta Bamel, Advocate for complainant.
......for the Complainant
 
Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate for respondents/opposite parties No.1 & 2.
Ms. Manisha Dhawan, Advocate for respondent/opposite party No.3.
......for the Opp. Party
Dated : 06 Jul 2023
Final Order / Judgement

No evidence of complainant is present despite last opportunity. This case is continuing for evidence of the complainant from 13.04.2022 and today is last opportunity on payment of costs Rs.500/-. Even cost has not been paid by the complainant and no effort has been made by the complainant to produce the evidence. Moreso, the complainant has already availed more than seven effective opportunities including last opportunity. Hence, there are no sufficient grounds for adjourning this case for the purpose of the evidence of the complainant. Hence, the evidence of the complainant is hereby closed by order of this Commission.

 2.               This complaint has been filed against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as  the complainant has suffered the loss of crop due to supply of spurious pesticide.  In written statement, respondents denied all the allegations of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                As the complainant has come before this Commission for seeking relief, the onus was on the complainant to prove his case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. Since the complainant has not produced any evidence on record despite several effective opportunities as stated above and hence, there is no iota of evidence on record to substantiate the allegations of the complaint. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed in lacking of evidence.

4.                This order be communicated to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the records after due compliance. 

 
 
[ Dr. J.R. Chauhan]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Smt. Anita Dahiya]
MEMBER
 
 
[ Dr. Suman Singh]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.