State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Indbro Research & Breeding Farms ... vs Suresh Kumar on 6 September, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1133 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 28.08.2012.
Date of Decision: 06.09.2012.
M/s Indbro Research & Breeding Farms Pvt. Ltd., 302, Sri Sai Kishana
Residency, Arvind Nagar, Damolpura Hyderabad, through its Managing
Director/Authorized Representative.
..... Appellant.
Versus
1. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Shiv Dyal, Resident of Village Bagroi, Tehsil
Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.
2. Amrik Singh @ Sunny S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, Resident of Village
Manwal Bagh, near Karam Singh Poultry Farm, opposite Maharishi
Adarsh Vidayala, Manwal, Pathankot.
...Respondents.
First Appeal No.1133 of 2012 against the
order dated 08.02.2012 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Hoshiarpur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:- Sh. Mukand Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
-----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Appellant- M/s Indbro Research & Breeding Farms Pvt. Ltd. (In short, "the appellant") has filed this appeal after the delay of 172 days.
2. Facts as are made out from the appeal file are that Sh. Suresh Kumar, respondent no.1/complainant (hereinafter called as "respondent no.1") filed a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called as "the Act"), pleading that in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment, he is running the business of the sale of chicken. The appellant owns a Breeding Farm and respondent no.2 is the authorized First Appeal No.1133 of 2012 2 agent of appellant. Respondent no.2 came to the premises of respondent no.1 at village Bagroi and offered to sell 8000 birds (chicken) @ Rs.22/- per bird and respondent no.1 agreed to purchase the same and in order to make the payment, raised the loan of Rs.1.75 lacs with interest @ 13.5% from the State Bank of India, Mukerian and as per directions of respondent no.2, the said amount was deposited in account no.630505030430 of the appellant in the ICICI Bank, Mukerian vide pay-in-slip dated 26.02.2011. The remaining amount of Rs.1000/- was to be paid at the time of delivery of the birds. The appellant and respondent no.2 agreed to deliver the birds at village Bagroi, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, but inspite of number of requests, the same were not delivered even after receiving the payment and that amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and respondent no.2.
3. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections qua maintainability, jurisdiction, suppression of material facts were raised. It was further pleaded that the appellant is dealing with broiler chicks, nor with commercial chicks. Respondent no.2 is not authorized agent of the appellant, nor he is authorized to collect any money on its behalf and the appellant is not liable for any act of respondent no.2. It was further pleaded that M/s Tushir Farm and Hatchery, village Jatti, Sonepat is associate of the appellant and it used to purchase parent broiler chicks from the appellant from time to time. In February, the said firm informed the appellant that it has deposited Rs.1.75 lacs in the account of appellant regarding purchase of parent broiler chicks and when the appellant received the amount at Hyderabad, it issued the receipt no.672 on 26.02.2011 in favour of M/s Tushir Farm and Hatchery. The appellant has no contract or relationship with respondent no.1, nor the appellant ever agreed to deliver any birds to him. The appellant never received any amount from respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 sent a false notice to the appellant which has been duly replied.
First Appeal No.1133 of 2012 3
4. Respondent no.2 filed separate reply, taking similar preliminary objections, including qua cause of action and estopple. On merits, claim of respondent no.1 was denied and it was pleaded that the answering respondent is not the agent of the appellant. The answering respondent never visited the premises of respondent no.1, nor he ever offered to sell the birds to respondent no.1. It was denied that respondent no.1 agreed to purchase any birds from the answering respondent. The respondent no.1 has no business relations with the answering respondent. Taking of loan of Rs.1.75 lacs is not related to the answering respondent, nor the answering respondent has got any knowledge qua the purpose of raising the loan from the State Bank of India, Mukerian. The answering respondent has been made party just to create the jurisdiction of the Forum. The answering respondent never agreed to deliver any birds at village Bagroi, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, nor any such agreement was executed. No legal notice was received by the answering respondent. There is no relationship of consumer and service provider between respondent no.1 and the answering respondent and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondent.
5. Parties led evidence in support of their respective versions by way of affidavits and documents.
6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record placed on file, the learned District Forum observed that the copy of receipt Ex.C-4 proves that an amount of Rs.1.75 lacs was deposited by respondent no.1 with ICICI Bank, Mukerian branch in favour of appellant and copy of Transaction Inquiry Ex.C-7 proves that this amount was credited in the account of the appellant. The appellant has denied receipt of this payment from respondent no.1, but instead claimed the receipt of this amount into its account from M/s Tushir Farm & Hatchery, village Jatti, Sonepat (its associate), but in the evidence except affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar Ex.OP-1, no other document has been brought on record. Neither First Appeal No.1133 of 2012 4 the receipt dated 26.02.2011 has been placed on record, nor any person from M/s Tushir Farm and Hatchery has been examined and the claim of respondent no.1 is proved. There is no evidence to show that respondent no.2 is agent of respondent no.1, and allowed the complaint, directing the appellant to return Rs.1.75 lacs along with interest @ 13.5% p.a. w.e.f. 26.02.2011 till realization and to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.02.2012, the appellant has come up in the present appeal.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has no concern with respondent no.2, nor respondent no.2 is its agent and the agent of the appellant is M/s Tushir Farm and Hatchery, Village Jatti, Sonepat, but neither the said firm is a party nor the said firm has sent any money for purchase of parent broiler chicks on behalf of respondent no.1. However, the said firm sent Rs.1.75 lacs on 26.02.2011 and the appellant has business dealing with the said M/s Tushir Farm and Hatchery and the District Forum has not taken notice of all this.
10. We have considered these submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record placed on the appeal file.
11. The counsel for the appellant himself has produced the copy of the account of the appellant in which on 26.02.2011, a sum of Rs.1.75 lacs has been deposited by cash and the receipt thereof was issued by the appellant. The perusal of the order of the District Forum shows that as per receipt Ex.C-4, an amount of Rs.1.75 lacs was deposited by respondent no.1 in ICICI Bank, Mukerian branch in favour of the appellant and the same was credited in the account of the appellant, as is clear from the Transaction Inquiry Ex.C-7. This document has also been relied upon by the appellant, First Appeal No.1133 of 2012 5 but we fail to understand as to how this document is of any help to the appellant, because the amount of Rs.1.75 lacs was received by the appellant for the supply of broiler chicks and admittedly, the same has not been supplied. The appellant has no right to retain the amount deposited by respondent no.1 and the District Forum has passed a detailed and speaking order, taking into consideration all these facts and the documents produced by the parties. There is no ground to issue notice to the respondents and the appeal is dismissed in limine.
12. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
13. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant to respondent no.1/complainant within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member September 06, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)