State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delta Insecticides Ltd., 1509, M.I.E. ... vs 1. Balwant Singh S/O Bhoop Singh R/O ... on 14 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.95 of 2008 Date of Institution: 27.12.2008 Date of Decision: 14.08.2012 Delta Insecticides Ltd., 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Haryana through its Director Mr. Mukesh Goel. Appellant (OP-2) Versus 1. Jagbir son of Ram Dhari, Jat, r/o Village Matan, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Haryana. Respondent (Complainant) 2. Punjab Beej Company, New Subji Mandi Chowk, Hisar Road, Hisar. Respondent (OP-1) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: None for appellant. Respondents exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Case called several times since morning but none put in appearance on behalf of the appellant though the case is fixed for arguments. Respondents are already exparte vide order dated 09.07.2012. It is already 12:56 P.M. This appeal relates to the year 2008. As per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaints as well as the appeals are to be decided within the prescribed period. Thus, the non-cooperative attitude of the parties is against the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act. Under these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely and therefore we proceed to decide the same after going through the case file.
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.11.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jhajjar whereby complaint bearing No.83/2007 filed by respondent No.1 (complainant) against the appellant as well as the respondent No.2 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for supplying of inferior quality of Ditto Herbicide, was accepted and following direction was issued:-
..We hereby accept this complaint. We hereby give the direction to OP No.2 to pay Rs.75,000/- to the complainant as loss of his wheat crop. Order be complied within one month. Accordingly, present complaint is hereby disposed off.
Admitted facts of the present case are that the complainant had purchased two boxes of Ditto Herbicide from the respondent-opposite party No.2 for spraying the same in his wheat crop.
The grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that the aforesaid Ditto Herbicide destroyed his entire wheat crops and thus he suffered huge financial loss at the hands of the opposite parties due to the supply of the spurious Ditto Herbicide supplied to him. Complainant submitted an application to Tehsildar Bahadurgarh for field inspection upon which the Tehsildar directed the Halqa Patwari for field inspection who inspected the fields and submitted report Ex.P8. S.D.A.O. Bahadurgarh also submitted his report which is Mark-A and the damage of wheat crop of the complainant was found 100%. Thus, the complainant sought compensation of Rs.90,000/- due to destroy of his wheat crop.
Opposite Party No.1 while contesting the complaint took the plea that the Ditto Herbicide supplied to the complainant was sealed/intact and was of good quality. It was further stated that no deficiency in service could be attributed to the opposite parties without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(1)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The compensation demanded by the complainant was denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite Party No.2 did not contest the complaint and was proceeded exparte.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party No.2 as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the appellant-opposite parties party No.2 has come up in appeal.
Since none has appeared on behalf of the appellant to argue the case, we ourselves have perused the grounds of appeal and the documents produced on the record.
It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased two boxes of Ditto Herbicide from the opposite party No.1 on 08.01.2007. It is also not disputed that the opposite party No.1 is the supplier of the Ditto Herbicide and opposite party No.2 (appellant) is the manufacturer. Complainant has produced on record the report submitted by Halqa Patwari Ex.P8 and the report of S.D.A.O. Bahadurgarh Mark-B whereby the loss of his wheat crop was assessed to the extent of 100%. So far as the plea taken on behalf of the appellant that the mandatory provisions of Section 13(1)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have not been complied with, is hardly significant because the complainant had not retained any part of the Ditto Herbicides with him. It was for the opposite parties to get the Herbicides tested in the laboratory of same batch number but they failed to do so. Thus, it is a fit case where the appellant-opposite party has rightly been held deficient in service for manufacturing spurious quality of Ditto Herbicides which was supplied to the complainant by the supplier (opposite party No.1). Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- 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 and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 14.08.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member