Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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") 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.

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 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: -