Haryana

Karnal

217/13

Mahinder Singh Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Venky's Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswant Singh

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint no.217 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.: 01.05.2013

                                                               Date of Decision 28.10.2016

 

Mahinder Singh Chauhan son of Karta Ram resident of village Amin (Bir Amin) tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra, proprietor of Chauhan Polutry Farm, Bir Amin District Kurkshetra.

                                                                             …………..Complainant.      

                                                Versus

1. Venky’s (India) Limited, SCO 453-454 Sector 35 C Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. M/s Kamal Medicose, G.T. Road Nilokheri District Karnal through its proprietor/ owner.

                                                    

…………Opposite parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                     Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

 Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh. Jaswant Singh Advocate for complainant.

  Sh. Sandeep Sharma Advocate for opposite party no.1.

  Shri Abhishek Chaudhary Advocate for opposite party no.2.

 

ORDER:

 

                     This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased land measuring 20 kanals situated at village Bir Amin District Kurukshetra, vide sale deed dated 28.11.2011 for Rs.37,50,000/-for the poultry farm. He purchased 14000 chicks/layers from the opposite party no.1, vide booking order dated 14.3.2012, for sum of Rs.3,43,000/-vide bill no.18422 dated 14.3.2012 which were received on 23.5.2012.  Opposite party no.2 also supplied feed medicines etc. for Rs.27,600/-, Rs.19,000/- and Rs.96960/- on 31.11.2012, 28.12.2012 and 31.12.2012 respectively. The said medicines etc. were not good quality, but was bad (kharaab)  as per reports dated 03.01.2013,  15.01.2013 and 26.2.2013 issued by Poultry Disease Diagnostic Laboratory Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Limited Karnal. Due to supply of bad medicines etc.                            by the opposite party no.2, more than 7000 chicks/layers had died.  He approached the opposite party no.2 and requested to pay compensation  for the loss and damages suffered by him due to supply of inferior quality medicines, foods etc., but opposite party no.2 did not pay any heed to his request. He had taken the loan from the Oriental Bank of Commerce Railway Road Kurukshetra and interest on loan was being charged by the Bank from him. In this way, opposite parties were deficient in their service, due to which he suffered mental agony and unnecessary physical harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1  put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant has not followed the procedure as per section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; that the complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts; that the complainant has no cause of action and that all the chicks were sold to the complainant for commercial purpose.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that there was long gap more than 6 months from the date of delivery of chicks and the date of illness. The date of delivery of chicks was 23.05.2012 and date of illness was reported on 3.1.2013. The complainant reported in the laboratory about the illness of the birds on 3.1.2013 and disease identified by the laboratory was M/D (Mearsk Disease) which was caused due to deficiency of immunity, because of Environmental Stress, Management lacking, any bacterial infection, toxicity and coccidiosis and for all these issues farmer was only responsible and the company could not be held responsible. It has further been pleaded that the opposite party no.1 was not responsible for the medicines purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.1 had supplied the 14000 chicks of very good quality. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on it part.

3.                Opposite party no.2 also filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and filed the complaint with malafide intention; that the complainant has no cause of action; that the complainant is not a consumer under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and that the complainant has not followed the procedure laid down under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

                   On merits, it has been pleaded that the test reports dated 3.1.2013, 15.1.2013 and 26.2.2013 did not give any indication towards the fact that the medicines supplied by opposite party no.2 were bad. Moreover, the medicines etc. supplied by the opposite party no.2 to the complainant were of the well reputed companies having an ISI Mark. It has further been submitted that the birds are highly sensitive and need intensive care. Any carelessness will lead to multiple diseases or mortality to the birds.  The complainant reported into the lab about the illness of the birds on 3.1.2013 and disease identified by the lab was an M/D, which was caused due to deficiency of immunity because of environmental stress, Management lacking, any bacterial infection, toxicity and coccidiosis and for all these issues complainant is only responsible. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C14 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Vinay Goyal Ex.RW1/A and affidavit of Lalit Chopra prop. Ex.OP1 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant had purchased 14000 chicks/layers from opposite party no.1 for Rs.3,43,000/-, which were delivered on 23.05.2012. The opposite party no.2 supplied feed, medicines/foods etc. for Rs.27,600/-, Rs.19,000/- and Rs.96960/- on 31.11.2012, 28.12.2012 and 31.12.2012 respectively. The complainant has alleged that due to poor quality of the medicines etc. supplied by opposite party no.2 more than 7000 chicks/layers had died and he obtained reports dated 03.01.2013, 15.01.2013 and 26.02.2013 in that regard from Poultry Disease Diagnostic Laboratory Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Karnal.

8.                Thus, the material question which falls for consideration is whether  more than 7000 chicks/layers in the Poultry Farm of the complainant had died due to any defective supply of chicks/layers by opposite party no.1 or due to supply of poor quality of medicines, feed etc. by opposite party no.2. The reports of Poultry Disease Diagnostic Laboratory Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Karnal are Ex.C5 to Ex.C7. According to the reports on 3.1.2013, 10,000 flock aged 7 months was tentatively diagnosed with M.D. disease, on 15.1.2013, 15000 flock size aged 225 days was tentatively diagnosed for M.D/Ca deficiency and on 26.2.2013, 14000/- flock size aged 280 days was tentatively diagnosed with M.D. disease. Medicines were prescribed for treating the flock. Field Investigation Report Ex.C9 was prepared by Dr. Sandeep Kumar and according to his report flock size 14000 aged 10 months was diagnosed with M.D. disease and total mortality was 7000. In none of these reports it was mentioned that the birds caught disease due to poor quality of medicines/feed etc. supplied by opposite party no.2 or the birds were already suffering with such disease at the time of delivery by opposite party no.1. The complainant even did not get tested feed and medicines supplied by opposite party no.2 from any authorized laboratory to establish that the same were not of standard quality and could cause MD disease in the poultry birds. Thus, there is no documentary evidence worth the name of the complainant to substantiate the plea put forth by him. Self serving affidavit of the complainant, which does not find support from any quarter,  cannot be taken to be the gospel truth. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that the complainant has failed to prove that the opposite party no.2 supplied the defective feed, medicines etc. or that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 28.10.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member