STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :        225 of 2015

Date of Institution:        09.03.2015

Date of Decision :         26.05.2015

M/s Redhu Beej Bhandar, Shop No.1, New Grain Market, Pillu Khera Mandi, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind through its Proprietor/partner.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Vikas s/o Sh. Dharambir Singh, Resident of Village Hoshiarpura, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Diamond Seed, 1 Km stone, Bhiwani Road, Hansi District, Hisar through its Proprietor/authorized signatory.

3.      Director of Extension Education C.C.S.H.A.U. Hisar.

4.      Deputy Director Agriculture, Jind, District, Jind.

5.      Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Safidon, District Jind.

Performa Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2 to 5

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Bhupinder Malik, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Raghav Gulati, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Respondents No.2 to 5 performa respondents.

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

By filing the present appeal, Redhu Beej Bhandar, Jind-Opposite Party No.1, has challenged the order dated February 5^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Jind, whereby complaint filed by Vikas-complainant (respondent No.1 herein), was allowed. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“11.   In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the opposite party No.1 charged excess amount than its printed rate from the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and an act indulging unfair trade practice by the opposite party No.1. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.2100/- as litigation charges.”

2.      The complainant-respondent purchased seven bags of wheat seed of HD-2967 variety from Redhu Beej Bhandar, Jind-Opposite Party No.1 (appellant herein), the authorized dealer of Diamond Seed-Opposite Party No.2, for Rs.9100/-, that is, Rs.1300/- per bag vide receipt dated December 15^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-2).  He noticed that Maximum Retail Price (for short ‘MRP’) mentioned on the bag was Rs.1200/- per bag. Objection being raised, the opposite party No.1 rectified the mistake by charging Rs.6900/- and issued fresh Bill Annexure A-6.

3.      It was further alleged by the complainant that when the crop was at vegetative stage, it was found that the seed supplied to him was defective and was of some other variety than HD-2967. He approached the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Safidon, District Jind. Accordingly, a team of agriculture experts consisting of Block Agriculture Officer, Pillu Khera, Agriculture Development Officer, Morkhi and Agriculture Development Officer, Ludana inspected the fields of the complainant and gave report Exhibit C-4, whereby it was observed that there was Kharpatwar (weeds) grown in the wheat crop and overall the crop was good.

4.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

5.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing their respective replies denying the averments made by the complainant.

6.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, District Forum accepted the complaint and issued direction as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant urged that inadvertently the servant at the shop had issued the bill by mentioning the rate of Rs.1300/- per bag and immediately the owner of the shop revised the bill to Rs.8400/- (Annexure A-6) for seven bags, that is, at the rate of Rs.1200/- per bag, which was also signed by the complainant.

8.      Since it was only a bonafide mistake on the part of the servant in mentioning wrong rate, the excess amount charged from the complainant was refunded and the revised bill was issued. Thus, no cause of action survived to the complainant to file complaint.  The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint without appreciating the true facts of the case.

9.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.6050/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

CL