SARABJIT SINGH Vs. WESTERN INDIA MATCH COMPANY WIMCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of three Appeals No.1182,1183 and 1184 of 1996 filed by Sarbjit Singh son of Sher Singh and Mrs. Shubh Sher Singh w/o Sher Singh, against the order dated 4th November, 1996 passed by learned District Forum, Karnal, whereby their complaints against the Western India Match Company for claiming compensation due to alleged deficiency in service in not performing their part of contract in purchasing the trees grown by the complainants on their lands, have been dismissed and the complainants have been relegated to seek their remedy before the Civil Court.

(2.) According to the complainant, they had entered into an agreement with Western India Match Company, Bombay on 31st December, 1986 for planting poplar trees, which were to be purchased by the complainant @ Rs.52.50 paise per tree. Since the amount was payable in instalments in a span of 8 years, the payment could be made as loan through the National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development, Chandigarh and after the expiry of 8 years, M/s. WIMCO Ltd. was to pruchase the trees @ Rs.500/- per tree or at a higher prices keeping in view the quality of the trees subject to the maximum income of Rs.2.25 lacs per acre. Alleging breach of this agreement, the complainants approached the District Forum styling the non-purchase of trees by the WIMCO as deficiency in service and claimed compensation of Rs.5 lacs along with 18% interest. In their reply, the respondents pleaded that as the matter involved complicated questions of fact and law and was based on the various stipulations made in the contract, the complaints should not be adjudicated by the Comsumer Forum. On the basis of these aforesaid facts and placing firm reliance on the decision of this Commission in the case of Prem Singh V/s. WIMCO Ltd. , decided on 5th July, 1996, dismissed the complaints relegating the complainants to the remedy before the Civil Court.

(3.) In the appeals before-us, learned Counsel for the complainants has vehemently contended that no doubt the rights of the complainants were based on the agreement entered into by them with WIMCO, but as the opposite party had failed to honour their commitment as agreed in the agreement, by non-supply of best quality of plants, due to which the complainants could not grow and sell back the best quality of grown-up trees. District Forum should have directed the respondent WIMCO Ltd. to purchase the tress or to suitably compensate the complainants. It has further been contended that the poor quality of the plants as well as non-supply of adequate fertiliser, insecticides and pesticides by the WIMCO amounted to deficiency in service. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel. In any case, the refusal to purchase the plants by the WIMCO after their maturity, cannot be termed as a deficiency in service; hence the complaints have been rightly rejected by the learned District Forum. Finding no legal infirmity in the detailed and well reasoned order passed by the learned District Forum, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeals.