BHATI POULTRY FARM Vs. KEWALRAMANI HATCHERIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal is directed against the Order dated 28th November, 1992 passed by the Rajasthan State Commission at Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 80/91 dismissing the complaint for the reasons recorded in the order passed in Complaint No. 79/91 decided also on 28th November, 1992.

(2.) THE facts in the nutshell are these : The complainant placed an order on M/s. Kewalramani Hatcheries for the supply of about 7,500 day old B.V. 300 hybrid layer chicks. The Order provided that the opposite party shall vaccinate the chicks with "Fl" and "Marek's" vaccination as per laid down procedure. The delivery of thechicks was made by the opposite party. According to the complainant the opposite party failed to carry out Marek's vaccination and over 5,700 chicks died of Marek's disease. The chicks were effective as they were not administered the Marek's vaccination at the time of supply and no vaccination was carried out even thereafter. The death due to Marek's disease is supported, by the reports of: (a) Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, (U.P.); (b) Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur; and (c) National Avian Health Labs, Gurgaon. The complainant alleged that he was aggrieved with the failure of the opposite party to provide services as per the direction of the appellant in her order dated 29th December, 1989 placed on the opposite party and the complaint was filed under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service. The complainant alleged that the opposite party failed to provide service of vaccination and/or for providing defective service. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 8,83,976.80 on account of losses suffered due to failure of the opposite party to render the service of providing Marek's disease vaccination to the chicks supplied to the complainant

(3.) BY the impugned order the State Commission stated that the facts stated in the complaint are similar to those in Complaint Case No. 79/91 and the opposite party in that case contested the complaint on various grounds including the failure of the opposite party to render service of providing Marek's disease vaccination to the chicks supplied to the complainant before supply and thereafter. Since the defence was identical with that which was taken in Complaint Case No. 79/91 and the documents and affidavits were also by and large the same as well as the contentions raised on behalf of the parties also being the same, the State Commission adopted the reasons given in the order passed in Complaint Case No. 79/81 decided on 28.11.92 and for the same reason the complaint was dismissed.