NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
REVISION PETITION NO. 1826 OF 2012
(Against the order dated 12-01-2012 in Appeal No. 1890/2005
Through its Zonal Manager,
Shri Rohit Pant
1. Hawa Singh Meel …….Respondent (s)
S/o Shri Jagram Meel,
R/o Village Biran,
2. Addinath Trading Company
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Trilok Chand, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sanchar Anand, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : NEMO
Pronounced on : 12th September, 2012
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. Hawa Singh Meel, the complainant in this case desired to purchase the seeds of Ashwagandha (Winder Chery) from M/s Adinath Trading Company, Mandi Prangan, Neemuch (M.P.). Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 2 was to supply the seed of Ashwagandha on 24.06.2003 through Transport Corporation of India, Opposite Party No.1 from its TIC Godown, Mohana Mandi, Hisar and sent the transport Bilty to the complainant on 05.07.2003. Opposite Party No. 2 informed the complainant and confirmed on telephone that the said seed was received on 07.07.2003. The delivery was to be given by the OP No. 1 to the complainant. The complainant got issued a bank draft in the sum of Rs. 2625/- dated 07.03.2003 at Chhanibari. The complainant approached the godown of Opposite Party No. 1 at Hisar to get the delivery of seed. But the Opposite Party No. 1 refused to give the delivery of the seed on the ground that the copy, which the complainant was having, was not the consignee copy. The opposite party No.1 asked him to bring the consignee copy. The complainant made a telephone call to the opposite Party No.2 and the OP No.2 promised the complainant that the consignee copy would be sent immediately. Despite various requests, the Opposite Party No.2 failed to furnish the above said consignee copy. It was explained that the same was lying with the opposite Party No. 1 at Hisar. The complainant was to purchase 75-kilogram seeds of Ashwagandha for sowing in 5-hectare land. The complainant had made preparation and spent money towards the cultivation, ploughing etc. Since the seeds were not delivered, a complaint was filed before the District Forum wherein it was prayed that the Opposite parties should be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/- as compensation.
2. The District Forum vide its order dated 12.01.2012 allowed the complaint and awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation against Opposite Party No. 1. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by that the present revision petition has been filed.
3. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He argued that as the consignee copy was not produced by the complainant, therefore, the above said seed was not delivered in his favour.
4. We are of the view that the finding given by the District Forum and the State Commission that the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to deliver the goods to the complainant after obtaining the demand draft and thus the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 clearly stands established is without any flaw. The opposite Party No.1 could not explain why it had not given the consignee copy to the complainant. This was not denied that the opposite party No.1 had received the demand draft. The complainant had also placed the bilty which showed that M/s Addinath Trading Company, Mandi Prangan, Neemuch (M.P.) sent the bag containing seed to the Opposite Party No.1 for the complainant. The complainant rightly refused to take the seed in the month of November as the sowing season was already over.
5. The revision petition is without merit and therefore the same is dismissed.
(J. M. MALIK, J)