RESERVED       

  STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                              UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                 APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2006

      (Against the judgment/order dated 04-01-2006 in Complaint Case

                     No.746/1998 of the District Consumer Commission, Bahraich)

01.Chilwariya Sugar Mill Ltd.

     Bahraich

     Through its General Manager and others,

02.Cane Manager, Chilwariya Sugar Mill Ltd.

     Bahraich

                                                                                   ... Appellants                                 

                                                     Vs.

1. Smt. Gayatri Devi

W/o Late Jagpal Singh

2. Rajiv Kumar Singh, S/o Late Jagpal Singh
3. Deepak Kumar Singh, S/o Late Jagpal Singh
4. Vijay Pratap Singh, S/o Late Jagpal Singh
5. Sabha Bahadur Singh, S/o Late Jagpal Singh

All R/o Kodari Dakhili, Paraspur

Pargana Fakharpur, Tehsil Mahso

District Bahraich

                                                                                      ...Respondents/

                                                                                         Complainants

06.Sadhan Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Limited

     Chilwariya Bahraich

     Through its President, Sri Chunmun Singh

07.Sachin Tiwari

     R/o Maraucha Dakhili Dhokari

     The then Field Assistant

     Chilwariya Sugar Mill Limited

     Bahraich

                     …Respondents

  BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAJENDRA SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. SUSHIL KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Appellant           :  Sri Ajay Vikram Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondents      : None appeared              

Dated :     1.9.2021

                                            JUDGMENT

           MR. REJENDRA SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 15 of The Consumer Production Act 1986 against the judgement and order dated

:2:

04.01.2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bahraich in complaint case number 746 of 1998, Jagpal Singh Vs Sadhan Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. & Ors .

In brief the facts of the appeal is that, that the Learned Forum has committed a manifest error of law while holding the appellants responsible for the alleged loss and even restraining them from realising the balance amount to be paid by the respondent no.1/complainant. The learned Forum has failed to visualize that except the complainant, no other person had filed any complaint against the quality or sowing problem of the cane seed type K–8119 and the complaint was being filed only to deprive the appellants from realising the balance amount to be paid to them by the complainant. The Learned Forum did not bother to find out the truth that even the cane purchased from the appellants through respondent no 2 & 3 were sown or not as it was the solemn duty of the complainant/respondent no 1 to get his field surveyed by the opposite party no 3 or at least from the Gram  Sewak of the area. The Learned Forum failed to appreciate that the alleged letters said to have been written to the appellant number 1 as well as the respondent no 2 are on the same date i.e, 14 May 1998 and had been made and fabricated in order to make the false and frivolous complaint in order to the deceit his creditor i.e, the appellants, which otherwise if taken to be genuine has never been offered or sent to the appellants.

It was fully established from the materials on record that the complainant has purchased only 30 quintiles of cane while the specific case of the complainant was that he had purchased 75 quintiles and 24 kgs of cane and invested several thousands of rupees in sowing the same and as such the entire allegations are made were prima facie found to be false. The Learned Forum has misconstrued and misappreciated the entire material on the record and has recorded findings, which are not only perverse but based on no evidence and as such cannot be sustained under the law and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Hence it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble State Commission may very kindly graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment dated 4 January 2006 and to allow the appeal.

:3:

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh. The service of notices on the respondents have been held sufficient but none appeared from the respondent’s side. We have perused the impugned judgment, pleadings and documents on record.

We have seen the impugned judgment. The Learned Forum has said in his judgment that as per of the written statement filed by opposite party no.2 /appellant no.1 has accepted to sell 30 quintiles of cane seed to the complainant. The learned Forum has also held that by the documents as well as by original receipts filed by the complainant, it is well established that the complainant on 15.04.1998 has received 30 quintiles cane seed from opposite party no 2 by paying its value to opposite party no.4. It establishes the fact that complainant is the consumer of opposite party no.2. The complainant has not submitted any proof of purchase of 75 quintiles and 24 kg of cane seed. Now the main question is regarding the sowing and non-sprouting of the cane seed. As per judgment Of the Learned Forum the opposite parties no.2 to 4 have been directed not to recover the balance amount of Rs.1350/– from the complainant and return the partial purchase money of Rs.900/– and also imposed Rs.10,000 as compensation for selling the defective cane seeds to the complainant. The main objection of the appellants is against this imposition of compensation of Rs.10,000/–. No documents have been filed by the complainant regarding purchase of manure, ploughing of field, irrigation, labour charges but it is clear that without these expenditure it was not possible to sow the sugar cane. The Learned Forum has said that if the decreetal around is not paid within 30 days from the date of judgment, the opposite parties no 2 to 4 shall pay simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment till date of payment. We have considered the amount of compensation and came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation should be Rs.5000/– in place of Rs.10,000/–. Except this rest of the judgment needs no interference by this bench. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed partially.

ORDER

The appeal is allowed partially. The amount of compensation in the

:4:

impugned judgment is amended to Rs.5000/– only in place of Rs.10,000/–. Rest of the judgment is confirmed.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

 The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.

 ( RAJENDRA SINGH )                                        ( SUSHIL KUMAR )

           PRESIDING MEMBER                                              MEMBER

Judgment dated/typed/signed and pronounced in the open court today by us.

           ( RAJENDRA SINGH )                                        ( SUSHIL KUMAR )

           PRESIDING MEMBER                                              MEMBER

           Jafri PA II

                  C-3