RAM SINGH vs ASSTT.ENGINEER, HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES

THIS is an appeal against the Order dated 4th February, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh by which the complaint filed by the present appellant, Ram Singh, against the present respondent, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation (for short the Corporation) was dismissed.

AS we intend to confirm the Order of the State Commission we do not think it necessary to go into the details of the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that Ram Singh, the complainant-appellant filed a complaint alleging that he is a small farmer and had applied for the grant of loan for the purchase of a Ford-3600 tractor through the Primary Land Development Bank Ltd., (for short PLDB), Rewari on 30th August, 1988. It was further his case that the loan was sanctioned on 20th September, 1988 and he was directed to purchase the said tractor through the Corporation. On 13th October, 1988 the complainant approached the Corporation for the booking of the tractor at Narnaul. According to the complainant, the supply of the tractor has to be in accordance with seniority in booking and his name stood registered before the names of S/Shri Ram Sarup, Rawat Singh Phool and Mangu Singh. However, the Corporation''s officials in connivance with the said persons delivered the Ford Tractor at the price of Rs. 1,34,000/- to them whilst denying the same to the appellant. It was further his case that vide letter 27th June, 1989 the Corporation informed him that the delivery of the tractor would be made within five or seven days. However, on 3rd July, 1989 he approached the office of the Corporation. He found no tractor was available with them and was asked to wait for 15 to 20 days. Therefore, the complainant launched a series of complaints to the authorities for the alleged wrong done to him but no useful purpose was served. It was further stated that the Corporation by a registered letter had forwarded a draft for the sum of Rs. 2,000/- as refund of his deposit but he had refused to accept the same. Being aggrieved against the Corporation, the complainant filed a complaint for the issuance of direction to the opposite party for supplying of Food-3600 tractor at the initial price of Rs. 1,34,000/- and also prayed for the award of Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation. The Corporation denied the allegation that the Primary Land Development Bank has sanctioned any loan to the complainant. It was pointed out that the relevant letter dated the 28th September, 1988 was a notice addressed to the complainant in which it was clearly mentioned that if he did not appear in the Bank within seven days for registration and also if he failed to deposit Rs. 3,800/- his case would be filed. As the complainant did not comply, there was no question of his being recommended or sponsored by PLDB. However, it was admitted that the deposit of Rs. 2,000/- was made by the complainant as security for the booking of a Ford-3600 tractor. It was further pleaded by the Corporation that there was clear distinction between the bookings sponsored by the PLDB and non-PLDB cases. Consequently, it was pointed out that in the priority list of non-PLDB/commercial the complainant''s seniority was at No. 1 but as regard the priority of cases sponsored through the PLDB, he was far below No. 7. Reliance was also placed on the instructions on this point which is in the following terms : "Booking register of tractors may please be maintained at your centre. The delivery will be given on first-come-first served basis but the preference may be given in the case of Ford-3600,3610 to the cases coming through PLDBs."

In the light of the said instructions it was pleaded by the Corporation that the names of the S/Shri Roshan Singh, Rawat Singh and Mangu Singh were higher and senior to the complainant while he stood registered at No. 18 in the register as non-PLDB/Commercial customer. The delivery was made in accordance with the above instructions and when the complainant''s turn came on 27th June, 1989, he was informed by the Corporation, but he refused to take the delivery and demanded that the tractor should be supplied to him at rates prevailing as on 13th October, 1988, namely, Rs. 1,34,000/-. It was also pleaded that no intimation was received from the PLDB regarding the sanction of the loan to the complainant or sponsoring him for supply of tractor nor the complainant had taken any such plea before the Corporation in writing. The whole refrain of the written reply is that the complainant was a non-PLDB case and priority had to be given to those only who were sponsored through the PLDB.

THE State Commission recorded evidence in the case. Affidavits of the complainant and his son Sube Singh were filed and both of them were cross-examined. The complainant had also summoned Babu Lal, a Clerk of the Corporation and Shri Devinder Singh, Clerk in the Deputy Commissioner''s office, Narnaul and their evidence was adduced on the record. In rebuttal, the Corporation produced the detailed affidavit of Shri Birbal Singh, Assistant Engineer, In-charge of the Farmers Service Centre, who supported the case of the Corporation. A photocopy of the register of booking was also produced indicating clearly that at S. No. 18 the complainant was registered as a non-PLDB one. Shri Birbal Singh was cross-examined on behalf of the complainant. The State Commission had further remarked that a reading thereof would indicate that the same substantially boomeranged on the case of the complainant.

AFTER considering all the whole evidence, the State Commission has held that the complainant was not duly sponsored by the PLDB for his booking of the Ford-3600 tractor with the Corporation. Accordingly the complaint was dismissed as mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has come in appeal before this Commission. We have heard the Counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The learned Counsel for the appellant failed to bring to our notice any document on the file to show that his case was sponsored by the PLDB to the Corporation. The complainant has himself filed the report of the City Magistrate who had conducted an inquiry in the complaint filed by the complainant. The said Officer, after the inquiry came to the conclusion that there was a gap of communication between the Haryana Agro Industrial Corporation and the PLDBs. He, therefore, suggested that PLDBs in future should send a copy of the sanction of loan to the Corporation.

THE complainant has himself filed the documents which are at pp. 32-A, 32-B, 32-C relating to Shri Rawat Singh, Shri Manju Singh and Shri Raj Kumar s/o Shri Roshan Singh. The first two documents were addressed by the Manager, PLDB, Mahandargarh to the Corporation while the 3rd document was forwarded by the PLDB, Bawal to the complainant. The is no such document in respect of the Complainant. The complainant has also not filed any document to show that he ever brought to the notice of the Corporation in writing that he has been sanctioned loan by the PLDB, and therefore, he should not be considered as sponsored by the said Bank.

AT page 26, the complainant produced a letter issued by the Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Rewari, which is a sort of notice to the complainant in which it is mentioned that a loan of Rs. 75,000/- has been sanctioned by the Committee of the Bank. The complainant was asked to comply with certain conditions within a week failing which the case of loan would be filed. Shri Ram Singh in his statement stated that the said terms have been complied with but no officer from the Bank was produced in evidence to prove the said contention. Even if we hold that the complainant had complied with the terms contained in the document at p. 26, we are of the opinion that in the present case the Bank can be said to be negligent in the performance of its duties in not informing the Corporation about the sponsoring of the complainant for the tractor. The Bank should have informed the Corporation about the sanction of the loan to the complainant. Therefore, when the Corporation was not in the know of the sanctioning of the loan by PLDB, Rewari to the complainant, he could not have been treated as sponsored by the Bank. As noticed above, it is not the case of the complainant that he informed the Corporation in writing about the sanction of the loan. We need not dwell much on this case as all the evidence has been thoroughly discussed by the State Commission and we agree with the findings arrived at by it. Hence, we do not find any force in the present appeal and dismiss the same but make not order as to costs.