AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an appeal by complainant against an order dismissing his complaint.
GRIEVANCE of complainant is defect in goods. is an organisation of the State Government Corporation known as ''Orissa Fish Seed Development Corporation''. This project is working under that Corporation. It has a nursery where fish fries are developed and sold. purchased fish fries therefrom. After taking the fries when he released them in the tank, most of the fries died. GRIEVANCE was made to the . No action was taken. Accordingly, complaint was filed. By purchase of fish fries, complainant is a consumer in respect of the goods. He has paid for the fish fries. Death of the fish fries on being released in the tank is claimed to be due to defect in goods. Complainant could not know why the fish fries died. He is a simple farmer who is allured with the attractive project to earn some profit by fisher. State Government organisations-whether they are corporations or other organisations under the State - are to assist such farmers in all matters. Therefore, when a consumer is making grievance that the fries being defective died, it was the duty of the persons in charge of the project to get the matter investigated and find out the cause of such death. Death of fries might be on account of defect in the fry itself or on account of the defect in the pond. If opposite party-respondent could have been able to find out the defect in the pond, question of defect in the fries could have been eliminated. When it is stated by complainant that some of the fries also remained without mortality, it indicates that the pond may not have defect. Therefore, District Forum was required to make an investigation if there was any defect in fries without giving importance to the fact that any deviation of the printed terms in the receipt with complaints are to be made within twenty-four hours. In all circumstances this is not possible. Assume a case where the fries are not fish fries but at tadpoles which cannot be detected immediately. In course of growth, it is found that the goods supplied are really not what was intended to be purchased. It is not possible to report within twenty-four hours of the purchase. This illustration is given to show that time is not the essence of the contract. Therefore, on investigation if can be found out whether the officers are negligent. Arrival at a conclusion without any investigation would prejudice either party. Since District Forum has not an investigation on the point indicated above which requires further material, we set aside the order and remand remit the complainant back to the District Forum for fresh disposal. Parties are directed to appear before the President, District Forum, on 22nd June, 1993 on which day the President shall fix a date of enquiry. Order set aside. _______________