KISHORI LAL Vs. OGHAIYA PROVISION STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against order dated 26.8.2005 passed by the District Forum, Hanumangarh in Complaint No. 190/2004 by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances - That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Hanumangarh on 4.11.2004 inter alia stating that he had purchased 20 bags ( 50 kg. per bag ) Milkfade branded animal food for Rs. 250 per bag from respondent No. 1 on 8.8.2004 after paying a sum of Rs. 5,000 and the said Milkfade food was manufactured by respondent No. 2. It was further stated in the complaint that after opening one bag it was found that the food sold by respondent No. 1 was of inferior quality and it was not of the mark of Milkfade branded but of lower quality known as food of Kamdhenu brand and the price of that food was more low in comparison to the Milkfade branded food and thus when the said food was given to the animals, they became ill and the complainant appellant had to spend a sum of Rs. 20,000 in treatment of the animals. It was further stated in the complaint that since the respondent No. 1 had supplied poor quality of food, therefore, he was guilty of committing unfair trade practice and for that deficiency the present complaint was filed. A reply was filed by respondent No. 1 before the District Forum, Hanumangarh on 26.2.05 admitting the fact that the bags of food as per cash memo dated 8.8.2004 were sold by him to the complainant appellant and since the bags were intact at the time of sale and the same were purchased by him from respondent No. 2 and therefore, if any defect was found, for that respondent No. 2 the manufacturer could be held responsible. A reply was also filed by respondent No. 2 on 15.2.05 and in the reply it was stated that they could not say anything that what type of goods were sold by respondent No. 1 to the complainant appellant and further no evidence had been led by the complainant appellant that the goods sold was of inferior quality and after taking the food the animals became ill. Hence no case and complaint be dismissed . After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Hanumangarh through impugned order dated 26.8.05 had dismissed the complaint of the complainant appellant inter alia holding the following reasons in para 7 of the order - (i) That as soon as the bag was opened and it was found that the food was of the mark of Kamdhenu brand, the complainant should have reported the matter to respondent No. 1 immediately. (ii) That if they were of the mark of Kamdhenu brand, the food should have not been allowed to be eaten by the animals but since they were allowed to be eaten by the animals, for that no deficiency on the part of the respondents could be attributed. (iii) That the complainant had failed to examine the food by expert evidence and in absence of any report of the expert, it could not be said that the food sold by respondent No. 1 was of inferior quality. (iv) That the complainant had failed to prove the fact that by taking the food sold by respondent No. 1 his animals had became ill as no report of any veterinary doctor had been produced. Aggrieved from the said order dated 26.8.2005 passed by the District Forum, Hanumangarh this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.

(3.) IN our considered opinion the reasons which had been recorded by the District Forum in para 7 of the order which had been narrated above, are such reasons which clearly reflect that the complaint of the complainant appellant was rightly dismissed by the District Forum and we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the District Forum. Hence no interference is called for with the same and the findings recorded by the District Forum are confirmed one as they are based on correct appreciation of entire material available on record and we do not see any illegality in the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the complainant appellant is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.