State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bapulal vs Sunfruits Ltd. on 18 February, 2020
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.1207 / 2013.
(Appeal arising out of the order dated 20.6.2013 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandsaur in CC No.201/2007)
Bapulal Patidar. .... APPELLANT.
Versus
Sun Fruits Limited & others. .... RESPONDENTS.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of ORDER
Order
18.2.2020 Shri Nitin Pandit, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
Heard.
2. Alleging deficiency in service in supplying "Biju Culture Stevia Plant"
in place of "Tissue Culture Stevia Plant" by the first respondent causing failure of the crop, the appellant / complainant had filed complaint case No.201/2007 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandsaur (for short the "Forum"). In addition to the said deficiency the appellant also alleged that the respondent no.2 / Bank was involved in conspiracy with the first respondent in financing the appellant for purchase
- 2- of the said plants. The Forum after considering the evidence led by the parties partly allowed the complaint by issuing following directions :-
isjk& 23 ifj.kker% ifjoknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr ifjokn vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gksus ls Lohdkj dj fuEu vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS %& ¼v½ foi{kh Ø-1 izR;sd ifjoknh ds uke ij foi{kh Ø-2 ds }kjk iznRr LVhfo;k Qly ls lacaf/kr tks cdk;k yksu dh jkf'k] Hkqxrku fnukad dks outstanding gksxh] mldk ,d&frgkbZ jkf'k vnk djsxkA ¼c½ foi{kh Ø-2 izR;sd ifjoknh ds uke ij mlds }kjk LVhfo;k Qly ls lacaf/kr tks cdk;k yksu dh jkf'k] Hkqxrku fnukad dks outstanding gksxh] mldk ,d&frgkbZ Hkqxrku djsxkA ¼l½ izR;sd ifjoknh vius&vius uke ij] foi{kh Ø-2 ds }kjk LVhfo;k Qly ls lacaf/kr tks cdk;k yksu dh jkf'k] Hkqxrku fnukad dks outstanding gksxk mudk ,d&frgkbZ vnk djsxkA ¼n½ mHk;i{k viuk&viuk okn O;; ogu djsx a sA
3. The Forum also observed in Paragraph 21 of the impugned order that the farming of medicinal plant stevia in Mandsaur district was an experiment and as such when it was not scientifically proven to cultivate said crop in Mandsaur area the appellant / complainant is also liable to share the loss suffered by him to the extent of 1/3rd with the opposite parties as he took calculated risk. Feeling aggrieved, by the part of the order
- 3- holding the appellant also liable to share the loss, the appellant has filed this appeal.
4. Having gone through the reasons stated and having regard to the undisputed fact that prior to sowing of the plant by the appellant in the said area there was no scientifically proven data available we are of the view that the appellant has also taken the risk and as such if the loss has incurred by him he can not shirk from his liability to share it.
5. Thus in our considered view no fault can be found in the order passed by the Forum holding the appellant also responsible to the extent of 1/3rd .
6. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (S.S. Bansal)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke