G HANUMANTH REDDY Vs. SINGH POULTRY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals, 190-91/95, 345/95 and 347/95, are against the common order dated 19.1.1995 of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh. The facts and law point in all the four appeals are the same with a few minor variations of no relevance or consequence as to the merits of the cases. Therefore, this common order will dispose of all these four appeals.

(2.) Basic facts of the case are that the appellants namely Shri G. Hanumanth Reddy in the F.A. Nos. 190-91/95, Shri T. Nageswara Rao in F.A. No. 345/95 and Shri M. Sivanarayana in First Appeal No. 347/95 bought Rani Shaver Star Cross 288 layer chicks from M/s. Singh Poultry Ltd., Hyderabad who are the respondent No. 1 - opposite party No. 1 (before the State Commission). The chicks are reported to have been vaccinated for the disease Merek by the vaccine produced and supplied by M/s. BAIF Laboratories Ltd., Pune who are respondent No. 2. The chicks did not yield the desired production of eggs; the production is reported to be 50 to 60% instead of 80 to 90% as promised. All the appellants had bought the chicks by obtaining loan finance from the Vijaya Bank. The case of the appellants is that either these chicks were not administered the vaccine for Merek disease at all or if administered the vaccine supplied by M/s. BAIF Laboratories was defective. The chicks died very early after giving very low production of eggs. The post-mortem report indicates that the chicks died of Merek disease.

(3.) The case of the respondent No. 1 is that chicks supplied by them were in good shape and condition and were duly vaccinated for the Merek disease. If they supplied 100 chicks to the appellants later on, free of cost it was out of sympathy and by way of help so as to enable them to make up some loss which they would have suffered on account of low production. Further, they wrote a letter to the Vijaya Bank in the case of one appellant so as to help him in getting a rescheduling of his loan obtained from the Bank for the purchase of chicks. In no way it amounted to the admission of non-vaccinated chicks or the defective chicks. The respondent No. 1 M/s. Singh Poultry Ltd. also raised the point before the State Commission that the chicks were purchased by the appellants herein for commercial purpose and, therefore, their complaint is not within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.