State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Paras Ram vs Yadav Fruit Piant Nursery on 8 March, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 959 of 2016 Date of Institution: 14.10.2016 Date of Decision : 08.03.2017 Param Ram son of Sh. Khetu Ram, resident of Village Dhani Bhana, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. Appellant-Complainant Versus Yadav Fruit Plant Agency, Village Sigri, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh. Respondent-Opposite Party CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Present: None for appellant. Mr. Charanjeet, Representative on behalf of respondent O R D E R NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)
Paras Ram-complainant (appellant herein) is in appeal against the order dated August 19th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short, 'District Forum') whereby it directed Yadav Fruit Plant Agency-opposite party to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, June 16th, 2015 till its realization and Rs.5,500/- litigation expenses on account of wrong supply of sapling of Lemon instead of Limetta.
2. On August 10th, 2009, the complainant purchased 175 saplings of emblic and 175 of Mosambi from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.7875/-. The complainant planted the aforesaid plants in his 1.5 acres of agricultural land. As per the complainant, opposite party supplied sapling of lemon instead of mosambi. The complainant moved application dated September 02nd, 2013 and January 29th, 2014 before the Block Horticulture Officer, Charkhi Dadri for inspection of said plants. The officials of the Horticulture Department inspected the fields of complainant and reported that the plants were not of mosambi but of sweet lemon. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.
3. The opposite party denied the averments of the complainant. It was pleaded that the report of the Horticulture Department was not clear.
4. The District Forum allowed the complaint and issued directions to the opposite party as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this order.
5. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal seeking modification of the order to the extent that Rs.6,90,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum be granted to him.
6. Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of the appellant-complainant. This Commission thinks it appropriate to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the opposite party and going through the case file.
7. Mr. Charanjit, representative of opposite party has placed on record statement of Param Ram-complainant recorded before the District Forum in execution application whereby he received cheque No.606062 dated October 13th, 2016 of Rs.50,840/- from the opposite party and the District Forum vide order dated December 20th, 2016 disposed of the execution application filed by the complainant.
8. Since the awarded amount has already been received by the complainant and there is no concrete evidence on record to prove that complainant suffered loss of Rs.6,90,000/-, in considered opinion of this Commission, the complainant has been adequately compensated. Thus, the appeal is devoid of merit and is therefore dismissed.
Announced 08.03.2017 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President UK