State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Godrej Agrovet Ltd. vs Dr.Ranjit Singh Son Of Gurbax Singh on 18 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1625 of 2003
Date of institution: 08.12.2003
Date of decision : 18.11.2009
1. Godrej Agrovet Ltd., C-4146, Focal Point, Khanna, District Ludhiana
through its Power of Attorney Sh.R.S.Vig, Senior Officer, Administration.
2. B.R.Trading Co., Tibbi Sahib Road, Muktsar through its Prop. Pritpal
Singh son of Balwant Singh.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Dr.Ranjit Singh son of Gurbax Singh resident of behind Arora Rice Mill,
Abohar.
2. Narinder Singh, Pharmacist resident of Tibbi Sahib Road, Muktsar.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 30.6.2003
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Arvind Mittal, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.A.S.Bakshi, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
Dr.Ranjit Singh respondent No.1 (in short "the respondent") was running a poultry farm on small scale for earning his livelihood. He used to purchase poultry feed from M/s B.R.Trading Company, Muktsar appellant No.2. This poultry feed was manufactured by M/s Godrej Agrovet Limited appellant No.1. Narinder Singh, Pharmacist respondent No.2 was a partner of M/s B.R. Trading Company appellant.
First Appeal No.1625 of 2003 2
2. It was further pleaded that the respondent had purchased 4051 broiler (chicks) for an amount of Rs.29,959/- on various dates i.e. on 24.10.2001, 4.12.2001, 14.12.2001 and 29.1.2002 from Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. The respondent had purchased many bags of crub starter and crub finisher on different dates from the appellants for the total amount of Rs.24,519/-. Appellant No.2 and respondent No.2 had assured that the poultry feed was of best quality.
3. It was further pleaded that the poultry feed sold by appellant No.2 as manufactured by appellant No.1 was of sub-standard and defective quality. When he gave this feed to the birds, they started dying in the month of January, 2002. On this the respondent approached appellant No.2 to look into the matter but in vain. As a result of this defective feed, all the birds of the respondent died till March, 2002. Dr.Harminder Pal Singh, Veternary Doctor had come for medical treatment and he reported that the birds had died due to food poisoning and the poultry feed purchased from the appellants was found to be sub-standard and responsible for the casualty.
4. It was further pleaded that the respondent sent the finisher feed for analysis in the Department of Animal Nutrition, Punjab Agriculture University for analytical test. It was reported that the said poultry feed was not upto the standard. It was also diagnosed and attested by the Department of Pathology, Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. The Pathologist also reported that the birds died due to Mycotocsis (Asasted Hepatitis). Therefore, it was clear that the birds died due to sub-standard poultry feed sold by the appellants to the respondent.
5. It was further pleaded that the respondent had spent an amount of Rs.29,959/- on the broilers, Rs.24519/- on feed and Rs.30,000/- were spent on various other accounts. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the respondent filed the complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "the District Forum") First Appeal No.1625 of 2003 3 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. Interest and costs were also prayed.
6. Appellant No.2 filed the written statement. It was admitted that appellant No.2 was a dealer while appellant No.1 was the manufacturer of the poultry feed. It was denied for want of knowledge if the respondent had purchased 4051 broiler (chicks) on various dates from Punjab Agriculture University for winter season or if he had taken proper care of these birds or if he was running the poultry farm for his livelihood.
7. It was admitted that the respondent had purchased crub starter and crub finisher from appellant No.2 on various dates for an amount of Rs.24,519/- and the said poultry feed was manufactured by appellant No.1. It was denied if the poultry feed sold by appellant No.2 to the respondent was of bad or of sub- standard quality or if it was the cause of death of the birds. It was pleaded that appellant No.2 as also appellant No.1 was a reputed firm. It was maintaining best standard of manufacturing. The poultry feed prepared was of high quality. The respondent has not produced any evidence to prove that the alleged death of the birds was due to the defective feed purchased by the respondent. No complaint was ever made by the respondent to the appellants.
8. It was, however, denied for want of knowledge if the treatment was given by Dr.Harminder Pal Singh, Veterinary doctor to the chicks. He was not a qualified person. He was neither a doctor nor he possessed any degree/qualification for the treatment of the birds. He was rather incompetent. He was not holding any degree of veterinary science. Therefore, the appellants are not liable for any suspected damage caused to the birds by Dr. Harminder Pal Singh due to his incompetency. His diagnosis was undependable.
9. It was further pleaded that the report of the Analyist was wrong. Sample feed was neither packed in the presence of the appellants nor it was sent by the respondent in the presence of the appellants. Therefore, the report is not First Appeal No.1625 of 2003 4 binding on the appellants. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
10. Appellant No.1 also filed the written statement. It was pleaded that the story of the respondent was a bundle of lies as it is self-contradictory. On the one hand, the respondent continued purchasing poultry feed till February, 2002 from the appellants and on the other hand, he has pleaded that the chicks had started dying in the month of January, 2002. If the poultry feed was suspected to be poisonous or defective or of sub-standard quality and the birds had allegedly started dying then the respondent would not have purchased the poultry feed from appellant No.2 manufactured by appellant No.1 after the birds had started dying. Other pleadings made by appellant No.1 were almost identical to the pleadings which were made by appellant No.2. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
11. Narinder Singh respondent No.2 also filed the written statement. It was pleaded that he was neither proprietor of M/s B.R.Trading Company appellant No.2 nor he was a partner. He has no link with the appellants in any manner. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
12. The respondent filed his affidavit Ex.C/1. He also proved documents Ex.C/2 to Ex.C/17. Dr.Ranjit Singh respondent tendered himself for cross- examination. Dr.Gagandip Singh was examined as a witness by the respondent. He proved documents Ex.C/18 and Ex.C/18A. He tendered himself for cross- examination and he was cross-examined at length.
13. On the other hand, the appellants proved document Ex.OP1. They also filed the affidavit of R.S.Wig, Executive (Administration), Godrej Agrovet Limited as Ex.OP2. He tendered his affidavit and power of attorney Mark-A. He also tendered himself for cross-examination. Shri Pritpal Singh also tendered himself for cross-examination and proved his affidavit as Ex.OP3. The appellants also proved the document Ex.OP4. They also filed the affidavit of Ajay Pal as First Appeal No.1625 of 2003 5 Ex.OP5. Narinder Singh respondent No.2 also filed his affidavit Ex.OP6. He also tendered himself for cross-examination.
14. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 30.6.2003 with costs of Rs.1000/- and directed the appellants to make the payment of Rs.1,35,000/- for the loss suffered due to defective/sub-standard seed and Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment.
15. Hence, the appeal.
16. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 30.6.2003 be set aside.
17. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
18. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
19. Admittedly, the respondent had started the poultry farm by purchasing broilers (chicks) on different dates from the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. The respondent has proved the cash receipt dated 24.10.2001 Ex.C/2 by which he had purchased 1400 broiler and receipt dated 4.12.2001 Ex.C/3 by which he purchased 1000 broiler and 10 chick boxes. He also proved the cash receipt dated 14.12.2001 Ex.C4 by which he purchased 335 broiler and 3 chick boxes and cash receipt dated 29.1.2002 Ex.C5 by which he purchased 1290 broiler and 13 chick boxes. Although this fact has been denied by the appellants for want of knowledge but since they have admitted that the respondent had been purchasing the crub starter and crub finisher from the appellants vide receipts dated 29.11.2001 Ex.C/10, 20.12.2001 Ex.C/11, 13.1.2002 Ex.C/12, 4.1.2002 Ex.C/13, 21.1.2002 Ex.C/14, 11.2.2002 Ex.C/15, 4.2.2002 First Appeal No.1625 of 2003 6 Ex.C/16, 22.2.2002 Ex.C/17, it leaves no doubt in mind that after all the respondent was running the poultry farm and that is why he purchased the crub starter and crub finisher for the birds.
20. The respondent has also pleaded that the broiler (chicks) had started dying in January, 2002 and all the birds in the poultry farm of the respondent died by March, 2002.
21. The only question which needs determination is whether these birds in the poultry farm of the respondent died due to the feed sold by the appellants to the respondent.
22. For that purpose, the respondent has filed his own affidavit Ex.C1.
23. He also proved the slip dated 5.3.2002 Ex.C8 of the Department of Veterinary Pathology, PAU, Ludhiana by which the Pathologist had recommended the treatment of the birds by prescribing medicines Ex.C8A. The sample of the poultry feed sold by the appellants to the respondent was got tested by the respondent from the Department of Animal Nutrition, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and they submitted the following report dated 5.4.2002 Ex.C6: -
"S.No. Sample Moisture Crude Dry Matter Basis
Protein Crude Ash Ether Crude
as such protein extract fibar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 130 Poultry Feed 9.22% 15.75% 17.35% - - -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
24. On the backside of this report dated 8.4.2002 Ex.C7, the following report was made by the Department of Veterinary Microbiology, College of Veterinary. Science :-
"Department of Vety. Microbiology, College of Vety. Science Case______________Laboratory (M.T.-1) Date 8.4.2002 Owner's name R.S.Shahjadra Poultry Farm, Muktsar First Appeal No.1625 of 2003 7 Results 75 +/- 25PP Date 8.4.02 sd/-Mycotoxin Laboratory"
25. The respondent has also examined Dr.Gagandeep Singh, Department of Veterinary Pathology, PAU, Ludhiana who has proved the report Ex.C6 of Dr.Sashi Sehajpal and his own report Ex.C/8. He also deposed that the case was suspected to be of mycotoxicosis which was mentioned on the back of Ex.C8 and the medicines were prescribed (Ex.C8A). The report of post mortem Ex.C8 was also proved. In the cross-examination, this witness deposed that he could not say whether he had examined the birds when these were alive or when these were dead. The respondent had brought only three birds but he could not tell the history of the birds. Again he deposed that he had checked 5 birds. Again said the chicks which he had examined were dead. He had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of 5 chicks and the disease suspected was mycotoxicosis. For confirmation, he had advised the owner to bring the feed sample to know the level of mycotoxins and to get the same analysed from the Department of Veterinary Micro biology. The feed sample report indicated negative for micotoxins. The respondent had also brought the sample of the feed on that day. It was got checked from the Veterinary Microbiology Department and the same was found negative to mycotoxins.
26. The appellants have filed the affidavit of R.S.Vig, Executive Administration Ex.OP2, Godrej Agrovet Limited who were the manufacturers of the poultry feed. He has deposed that the manufacturers are the reputed firm. They were the manufacturers of the product with high degree of caution and awareness and with high standard quality control measures. This high standard feed is distributed to many States to the poultry farms but no such complaint was ever received from any of the poultry farms. It is also deposed in the affidavit that Dr.Ajay Pal of the appellants had instructed the firm of the respondent on a routine visit to facilitate its customers. He had also found that the chicks were kept by the First Appeal No.1625 of 2003 8 respondent in an unhygienic condition in the farm. The respondent himself was treating the chicks without consultation of an expert. The doctor had found that the respondent was avoiding medicating the chicks without consulting the dose of medicines and quality of medicines. The substandard quality medicines were used by him. Even on the advice by Dr.Ajay Pal, the respondent was adamant and did not follow the instructions given by him. This conduct of the respondent was clearly violative of the instructions and might have led to the death of the chicks.
27. Pritpal Singh also filed his affidavit Ex.OP3. He was an agent of the manufacturers M/s Godrej Agrovet Limited (appellants). He also deposed that the poultry feed manufactured by the appellants was of best standard and good quality. He also deposed having sold the poultry feed to Dr.Ranjit Singh respondent. It was sold by him to the respondent in the same condition in which it was received by him from the manufacturers. He further deposed that the respondent was not a qualified person and was not competent to treat the chicks.
28. Dr.Ajay Pal Singh also filed his affidavit Ex.OP5 in which it was deposed that he was B.V.S.C. and A.H qualified. He was working as Veterinary Officer with M/s Godrej Agrovet Limited appellant. He visited the poultry farm of the respondent in December, 2001 and had found that the respondent was keeping the chicks in a very unhygienic condition. There was less waterors and the feeders were contaminated by dust. It was not suitable for proper poultry farming. The feeding material was also wet and the feed was scattered on the floor. This kind of unhealthy management gave way to pathogens which could cause diseases to many chicks. He himself had advised the respondent not to use any medications without prescription from the qualified doctor. Even at that time, some birds are suffering from viral disease, which were the source of infection to other birds.
29. However, the statement of Dr.Gagandeep Singh, Department of Veterinary Pathology, PAU, Ludhiana does not help the respondent. He had suspected the disease by which the birds died to be mycotoxicosis. The sample of First Appeal No.1625 of 2003 9 the feed was got tested but this report indicate negative for micotoxins. He repeatedly deposed that the mycotoxins were not found in the sample feed. Even the report Ex.C6 does not talk of mycotoxicosis nor the report Ex.C7 or Ex.C8 or Ex.C8A. Therefore, the respondent could not produce any evidence to show if the poultry feed sold by the appellants to the respondent was the cause of death of the birds in his poultry farm.
30. Moreover, the respondent had started purchasing the poultry feed from the appellants since October, 2001. Even as per the version of the respondent, the birds had started dying in January, 2002. If the poultry feed sold by the appellants to the respondent had some poisonous element then the birds would have suffered diseases or death soon after they were given this feed. There is no evidence produced by the respondent to show if it took three months time for the birds to die after taking the poultry feed sold by the appellants to the respondent.
31. There is still another way to look at the things. The version of the respondent is that the chicks of his poultry farm had started dying in January, 2002 but the respondent continued purchasing the feed from the appellants till 21.2.2002 Ex.C/17 and upto 4.3.2002 (Ex.OP3). If the birds had started dying in January, 2002, the respondent would not have purchased the poultry feed from the appellants after that date. Therefore, this conduct of the respondent also proves that it was not the poultry feed sold by the appellants to the respondent which was the cause of the death of the birds in the poultry farm of the respondent. It appears that the birds died for other reasons not attributable to the appellants.
32. In view of the discussions held above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 30.6.2003 is set aside.
33. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with First Appeal No.1625 of 2003 10 interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
34. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 4.11.2009 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
35. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER November 18, 2009.
Paritosh