SHIV SHAKTHI BIO-PLANTEC LTD vs FANINDRA CHAUDHARY

-THIS appeal preferred by the appellant/o. P. against whom award of Rs. 14,754 has been passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent.

THE facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is regular customer of Shiv Shakti Bio-Plantec Ltd. and he was purchasing teakwood seeds from the appellant from 1998-99 till now. At the relevant time Anup Agrawal and Praveen Kumar were working as Manager of the appellant company who contacted the respondent/complainant and promised him to provide medicinal seeds-Safed Musli telling that this will provide a lot of profit to the complainant. On this assurance and on the demand of the officers of the appellant company Rs. 10,000 were paid by the respondent to them regarding which they issued written receipt. Later on persistently complainant demanded supply of the seeds but no supply was made by the appellant and only assurances were given. On 9. 6. 2006 again an amount of Rs. 254 was demanded, on the pretext that seeds would be supplied through registered post and this amount would be required for postal charges, and another receipt was given in this regard by the officers of the appellant company. But even after obtaining that amount seeds were not supplied. Ultimately, written notice was given by the complainant and thereafter complaint was filed before the District Forum with the grievances that on the assurance of the officers of the appellant, land was also kept vacant for sowing those seeds which were to be provided by the appellant. In all Rs. 15,000 were demanded by way of compensation due to loss occurred on account of non-supply of seeds and Rs. 10,254 which were paid in advance and Rs. 5,000 for mental agony and Rs. 3,000 by way of cost. District Forum, after considering the complaint and the material produced by both parties ultimately awarded an amount of Rs. 14,754 to the complainant, and appellant/o. P. was directed to pay the amount within a period of one month.

The contention of the appellant/o. P. before the District Forum was to the effect that Rs. 10,000 were never received by the company and no such amount was ever deposited by any employee of the company on its account. It has also been averred that Anup Agrawal and Praveen Kumar were not the employees of the appellant company. It has also been written in the written version that the complainant was advised to show receipts and to produce some evidence in support of his contentions and in case he produces such evidence then amount would be paid by the company, but no efforts were then made by the complainant.

THE contention of the representative of the company before this Commission is also same that money was never received by the company or his employee. It has also been contended that so far as the receipt of Rs. 254 is concerned it has been issued from the receipt book of the company but so far as the receipt of Rs. 10,000 is concerned it has some difference in printing material, so it is doubtful whether it belongs to the company or not. In this premises it has been argued that learned District Forum has drawn wrong conclusions and wrongly awarded Rs. 14,754 in favour of the complainant. Learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent has submitted that the complainant is regular customer of the appellant company and seeds were being purchased by him earlier and supplies were made regularly and payments were obtained. He has shown money receipts issued by the company, which were of similar style, of each of those receipts which have been filed before the District Forum. He submitted that the complainant has paid the amount to the employees of the appellant company and in this regard produced money receipts and has also given his affidavit in support of averments made in the complaint.

WE have seriously considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and minutely perused the record of the District Forum. Receipts have been produced by the complainant to show that Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 254 were obtained by the employees of the company from him and then these receipts were issued. Receipts are bearing signature of the employee of the appellant/company along with its mono and order No. is also, printed on the receipts. There is also an affidavit of the complainant/respondent in support of the contentions raised in the complaint. To counter this evidence of the complainant that the officers of the appellant company have received the amount and given assurance to the complainant, no affidavit has been filed by the appellant, and only an affidavit in support of the written version has been filed, but in the written version it has been written that complainant was required to prove that he had paid the amount as stated in the complaint. On inquiry during the course of arguments it has been stated that Rs. 10,000 have not been deposited in the company''s account. So far as Rs. 254 is concerned, initially receipt of this amount was also denied in the written version but during the course of argument of this appeal it has been admitted that this amount was received by the company for VPP charges. The statement of the representative of the appellant company regarding receipt of amount of Rs. 254 for VPP charges, is very much significant because in written version, it has been mentioned that the company does not give any assurance of sending seeds by VPP and receipt of this amount was also denied in the written version, but now, atleast receipt of this amount has been admitted and if earlier, no advance was received by the company then there was no occasion for accepting any amount as VPP charges because nothing was required to be sent by the appellant company. Learned District Forum has believed statement in the form of affidavit of the complainant, supported by both written receipts, and we agree with this conclusion as no mistake has been committed by the District Forum in arriving to the conclusion that the amount was received by the employees of the company or atleast by some persons who were using receipt books of the company. Nothing has been produced by the company/appellant to show that these persons who have signed those receipts were never there in the employment or had never collected any amount for the company by way of advance for supply of seeds. There is also nothing to show that the appellant company do not deal with seeds of Safed Musli, which is used as medicine. The company is authorized dealer for seeds and as shown by the representative of the company, the company has been authorized by the Government of C. G. Also some authority papers and printed receipt books have been shown by Mr. Sethi, representative of the appellant to this Commission. On basis of aforesaid we are convinced that the company deals with seeds and supplies it to the farmers. We are also convinced that it is proved that the complainant has paid Rs. 10,000, after accepting proposals from the representatives of the company, "to buy seeds of Safed Musli which may be profitable". To summarize it can be said that there is no sufficient material to show that money was not paid by the complainant to the agent of the company.

MR. Sethi appeared for the appellant/company has drawn the attention of this Commission towards the judgment of National Commission in case of II (1991) CPJ 346 (NC), M. N. Narasimha Reddy v. Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Ors. In that case an Advocate booked order for supply of a Maruti car thereafter terms for supply of car were modified, on this fact, it was held that the complainant was not a consumer within the definition of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of present case are not like that. Clearly money has been paid for supply of seeds and seeds were not supplied so there was definitely deficiency in service on the part of the company who were dealing with the seeds and continuously supplying seeds to the complainant.

SO far as the amount of Rs. 3,000 which has been awarded by the District Forum by way of loss is concerned, there is nothing on the record to show that loss has actually been suffered by the complainant. Therefore, we hold that this amount is not payable by the appellant/o. P. So far as remaining award is concerned it does not call for any interference. Therefore, the appeal succeeds in part. The award of Rs. 3,000 by the District Forum against loss is hereby set aside and remaining award passed by the District Forum is confirmed.

So far as the cost of this appeal is concerned, both parties will bear their own cost. Appeal partly allowed.