O R D E R ; ( Per Shri B.R. Chandel, President).
The complainant Shri Sukh Ram offered to purchase 21,850 flower plants (dianthus plants (Blzet) )5000 number, dianthus plants (fnail) 5500 number, dianthus plants (Gaudina) 8,350 number and dianthus plants (yellow Firator Flanel 3000 Nos.) in sum of Rupees 21,725/- on assurance given by opposite party No.1 of the said flower plants to be of the good quality. The said offer was accepted by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 supplied the said plants vide delivery note Annexure C-7 dated 01-10-2010 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein by Zet Airways on the strength of Airway bill Annexure C-8. The said plants were duly received by the complainant.
2. In view of the above stated undisputed facts the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to refund Rupees 42,500/- plus freight charges of Rupees 6,000/- and to pay a compensation of Rupees 20,000/- on the grounds that out of the said plants 5000 were found spoiled/damaged and upon findings such spoiled plants the complainant immediately informed the opposite parties and asked to take back the said number of spoiled plants and to refund the proportionate amount of price, but the opposite parties failed to do so due to which the complainant has suffered monetary loss, harassment and mental tension.
3. The opposite parties disputed the said claim and have set up the defense that the plants were delivered to the complainant on 03-10-2008, but the complainant did not claim or inform the opposite party No.2 within 8 days as per the terms and conditions of the supply of such plants. A technical expert of the opposite party No.2 visited the site on 03-10-2008 for guidance of the complainant who found that the complainant had not constructed the required infrastructure and net shade and sport net was not provided. The beds i.e. ground for plantation was not properly leveled in which the water might accumulate and damage the plants because of water accumulation. The pesticides were of expired date. The quantity of fertilizers was also not available. The breeding was delayed by the complainant. It was informed to the complainant that the project was having shell ‘like’ and if the same was not provided within the stipulated time it would result into the loss of mortality, hence the opposite party No.2 had not supplied the spoiled plants at all and as such committed no deficiency in service.
4. The aforesaid number of plants were supplied to the complainant vide delivery note Annexure C-7. One of the condition of the delivery of plants is that all claims, if any, put forward from buyer’s side against the seller shall be deemed waived unless presented within 8 (eight) days from the date of receipt of the product/goods. In case of non arrival of the goods at destination within reasonable time after the date of notification from the seller towards the buyer, the latter shall notify the seller by fax about the date in the arrival of the goods. Although, the complainant has claimed that he immediately informed the opposite parties but the said fact is not supported and substantiated by any evidence on record. The opposite parties have produced in evidence the report of technical Manager dated 03-10-2008 Annexure R-3 which has been duly signed by the complainant. Vide said report he has provided the guidelines to the complainant in respect of temperature to be maintained, bed status, irrigation, fertigation, and plants production measures. He has also guided in respect of the pesticides’ to be used and the time for using fertilizers. Had the plants received in spoiled or damaged condition the complainant was required to bring the said fact in the notice of the technical expert. The complainant has not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of report of technical expert Annexure R-3 or his signatures on the same. Vide said report he has also pointed out various defects on the site. Not to say only this, the technical expert also visited the site on 09-11-2008 and prepared his report Annexure R-4 which is duly signed by the complainant but on that day he has also not pointed out that 5000 plants were found spoiled at that time. The complainant must have planted all the plants on the spot and he could have easily pointed out the said fact to the technical expert, but he has not noted the said fact at the time of signing of report of the technical expert dated09-11-2008 Annexure R-4. The complainant has also not explained any reason as to why the said fact was not pointed out to the technical expert, as a result of which the version of the complainant is not worth believable.
5. In the complaint the complainant has claimed that 5000 plants were found defective or spoiled or damaged and the same fact has been deposed by him in his affidavit Annexure C-1. But in the affidavits of Ravinder Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Balwinder Singh Annexure C-3 to Annexure C-5 respectively which have been produced by the complainant in evidence, they have deposed that 5500 plants were found spoiled. The said difference of 500 plants has not been explained by him. The complainant has never set up the case that 5500 plants were spoiled or damaged. He has also produced in evidence the report of Ram Lal Sandhu Annexure C-6 vide which he has reported that on 05-10-2008 he inspected the carnation plants of the complainant in which about 5500 number plants were found unfit for plantation due to fungal attack in the roots of the said plants. He has also deposed in affidavit Annexure C-2 in support of the said fact. Had this report been in possession of the complainant on 05-10-2008, in the natural course or circumstances he was supposed to brought the said fact in the notice of the opposite parties, but the said fact was never brought in the notice of the opposite parties within 8 days as per the condition of the delivery order. The complainant has failed to explain the said lapse. The complainant has also not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the report of the technical expert Annexure R-3 and Annexure R-4, according to which some shortcomings were found for proper plantation of the plants. There is no evidence on record that he had removed the said shortcomings. He has failed to explain as to why the said fact was not brought in the notice of the technical expert and got noted down on his report Annexure R-4 when he appended his signature on the same. There is no cogent evidence on record to conclude that the plants when delivered to the complainant were fungal infested from the roots due to the negligence or fault of the opposite parties.
6. In view of the evidence discussed and findings recorded above, this Forum is left with no alternative except to conclude that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence the complaint is bound to fail.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed. No orders as to cost. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, complete in all respects, be consigned to the Records.
ANNOUNCED & SIGNED IN THE OPEN FORUM;
Today this the 21st day of January, 2015.
( B.R. Chandel)
President
(Manorma Chauhan) (Pawan Kumar)
Member Member
