National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kehar Singh Kang vs Blue Stallion Equipments Pvt. Ltd. on 1 April, 2022
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 686 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 13/09/2013 in Appeal No. 355/2012 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. KEHAR SINGH KANG S/O SHRI BALWANT SINGH, R/O VILLAGE MARWA , P.O NANDPUR, KALOUR, TEHSIL BASSI PATHANA, DISTRICT: FATEHGARH SAHIB PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BLUE STALLION EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AT 4472/A,STREET NO-10, OPP POST OFFICE,SHIMLA, PURI, LUDHIANA - 141003 PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. BINOY KUMAR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person For the Respondent : Mr. Mohit Kumar Bafna, Advocate Mr. Pulkit Tare, Advocate Dated : 01 Apr 2022 ORDER R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT
1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Original Complainant (Kehar Singh Kang) against the Order dated 13.09.2013, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 355 of 2012, whereby the State Commission has directed the Opposite Party/Respondent herein to pay to the Complainant/Petitioner herein a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of vegetables and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The Appeal before the State Commission had been preferred by Blue Stallion Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party/Respondent herein, against the Order dated 27.01.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint No. 168 dated 14.07.2011, which had been preferred by the Complainant/Petitioner herein. By the said Order, the District Commission had allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party/Respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as also Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the Complainant/Petitioner herein.
3. The facts in brief are that the Complainant/Petitioner herein in order to get a Poly House (Floricultural Unit), a structure made of translucent material like glass or polyethylene where the plants grow and develop, constructed on his agricultural land had submitted his Project under the National Horticulture Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). The Poly House was to cost about Rs.10,65,000/- and a subsidy of Rs.3,25,000/- was to be given as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme. The Assistant Director, Horticulture, Fatehgarh Sahib approved/sanctioned the Project and sent the case file relating to loan to the Manager, PAD Bank, Branch Bassi Pathana vide Sanction Letter dated 25.03.2008. They sanctioned the loan of Rs.5,25,000/- on 25.03.2008 and also released first instalment on 31.03.2008. The Complainant/Petitioner approached the Director of the Opposite Party/Respondent, who agreed to construct the Poly House for Rs.7,00,000/- by 31.01.2009. The instalments were being paid to the Opposite Party/Respondent regularly. As per the Receipt/Retail Invoice dated 31.03.2009, though the total amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid to the Opposite Party/Respondent but the construction of the Poly House was not completed by it within the stipulated period, on account of which the Complainant/Petitioner suffered huge loss by not getting two crops in the year 2009. Because of non-installation of drip irrigation, fountain irrigation and shed-net system and resultant non-completion of the Project in time by the Opposite Party/Respondent, the Complainant/Petitioner got subsidy late. While on one hand the Complainant/Petitioner was paying instalments towards the loan regularly to the Bank, on the other he was not getting any income from the Project. In February, 2010 the Project was completed by the Opposite Party/Respondent and on 13.04.2010 the Complainant/Petitioner arranged an exhibition about the Poly House being a new technology for agriculture, which was also published in the newspapers. It is averred that that due to poor quality material used in the construction of the Poly House, due to rain in June 2010 and minor storm it was destroyed, its sheets were torn, whole structure was loosened, and crop of Capsicum (Shimla Mirch) was destroyed. Upon receipt of a legal notice dated 01.07.2010 from the Complainant/Petitioner, the Opposite Party/Respondent started repairing work but took too long time in doing so and divided the structure in two parts, saying that it would be safe. However, again the sheets got torn and the structure became loose. Again the Complainant/Petitioner issued legal notice dated 30.05.2011 to the Opposite Party/Respondent, demanding Rs.7,00,000/- received by them from him. The Opposite Party/Respondent vide its reply dated 15.06.2011 refused to pay the demanded amount.
4. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party/Respondent on the aforesaid counts, the Complainant/Petitioner filed the Complaint before the District Commission, praying for the following reliefs:
"It is therefore, prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay back the whole amount, received by opposite party from complainant i.e. Rs.7,00,000/- as principal amount plus interest amount, and also be directed to pay the damages, compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum may deems fit and proper, may also be granted in favour of the complainant in the interests of justice."
5. Upon notice, the Opposite Party/Respondent by filing Written Statement/Reply denied all the allegations levelled against it in the Complaint and requested for dismissal of the Complaint.
6. The District Commission vide its Order dated 27.01.2012 while observing that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party/Respondent, inasmuch as the structure was loosened and poor quality material was used in constructing the Poly House, allowed the Complaint and directed it to pay to the Complainant/Petitioner Rs.7,00,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the Complaint till 14.07.2011 till realization as also pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses within one month from the said date.
7. Feeling aggrieved with the Order dated 27.01.2012, passed by the District Commission, the Opposite Party/Respondent filed the Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, inter alia, observing that the Poly House was properly constructed; the Complainant/Petitioner had suffered a loss between Rs.25,000/- and Rs.30,000/-; no documentary evidence had been produced on record by the Complainant/Petitioner that the repair of the Poly House had not been done by the Opposite Party/Respondent as per his satisfaction; and the Poly House had been damaged by a Thunderstorm, for which the Opposite Party/Respondent was not responsible, partly allowed the Appeal, holding that the Opposite Party/Respondent was liable to pay to the Complainant/Petitioner a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of vegetables and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
8. Now, aggrieved with the Order passed by the State Commission, the Complainant/Petitioner is before us in the present Revision Petition.
9. We have heard the Complainant/Petitioner, who has appeared in person, as also learned Counsel for the Opposite Party/Respondent, and gone through the material on record, including the Orders passed by the District Commission and the State Commission.
10. In support of his submission that poor quality material was used by the Opposite Party/Respondent in the construction of the Poly House and, therefore, the structure was loosened, neither any evidence/document was produced by the Complainant/Petitioner nor any Report to this effect was submitted by the Horticulture Department. Rather, the Horticulture Department had submitted Inspection Report dated 03.08.2009, which had been prepared by the Committee Members after duly inspecting the Poly House, to the effect that the Poly House had been prepared as per the specifications of the Horticulture Department. The District Commission was, therefore, not justified in returning a finding that poor quality material was used in the construction and the structure was loosened.
11. It is true that the Poly House was damaged due to Thunderstorm/Hailstorms in June 2010 and it was repaired by the Opposite Party/Respondent. The Complaint and the Reply filed thereto are silent with respect to the date, when the repairs in the Poly House were completed and how the Complainant/Petitioner was satisfied with the repairs carried out. The Letter dated 27.09.2010, which had been written by the Complainant/Petitioner to the Assistant Director of Horticulture, stating that the Poly House was damaged due to rainstorm/hailstorm and the repair of it was going on by the Company at its own cost, which would be completed within some days, and he had full faith in the Company, cannot be taken as his satisfaction of the repairs carried by the Company out because by that time the repairs were not complete. In that case too, in the absence of document/evidence to the effect that the repairs were not carried out properly, the Opposite Party/Respondent cannot be held liable for the damage caused to the Poly House.
12. It seems that the Poly House was constructed as per the specifications of the Horticulture Department and there was no complaint about the material used when it was completed. However, in June 2010, certain damage was caused to it and the structure was loosened, possibly because of high velocity of the Thunderstorm/Hailstorms, as opined by the Assistant Director of Horticulture Department in the Letter dated No. 413 dated 06.09.2010, for which the Opposite Party/Respondent was not liable, as per the terms and conditions of the Warranty (Ex.R17). It is not the case of the Complainant/Petitioner that he was not aware of the terms and conditions of the Warranty.
13. Further, The District Commission in its Order had observed that as per Ex.R18 both the Parties had agreed that the Poly House would be completed within 30 - 35 days from the date of receipt of confirmed Order and the Order was received as Ex. R18 on 10.01.2009 and it was completed in February, 2010, with a delay of one year. The fact relating to said delay has not been denied by the Opposite Party/Respondent but both the District Commission and the State Commission have not considered this aspect of the matter, perhaps because the Complainant/Petitioner had not requested for any relief on account of delay.
14. In this view of the matter, while the Complainant/Petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the Complaint, the State Commission was not justified in limiting the award to the tune of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of vegetables, as opined by the Assistant Director, Horticulture in its letter dated 06.09.2010, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib. Bearing in mind the fact the Complaint was filed on 14.07.2011, the State Commission ought to have awarded a reasonable interest on the amount of loss suffered in the year 2009. In our considered view, interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization would meet the ends of justice.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Order passed by the State Commission is modified to the extent that the Opposite Party/Respondent shall pay to the Complainant/Petitioner Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of vegetables and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. On the amount directed to be paid as loss of vegetables, interest @ 9% per annum shall also be paid from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e. 14.07.2011, till realization.
16. The Revision Petition stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... BINOY KUMAR MEMBER