B.K. Taimni, Member—Appellant was the Opposite Party before the State Commission where Respondent, Mr. Ashok Sekhon, had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant who is a leading manufacturer of matchstick items, under a scheme floated jointly with NABARD, entered into an agreement with the Respondents/Complainant through which 1800 ETPs(Entire Transplants of Poplars) were to be given to the Complainant for growing them into tree of up to given dimension, and for which an agreement was entered between the parties. It was the case of the Complainant that the Appellant was to obtain the insurance cover for the plants, which he did not cover and since the plants got damaged in 1990 due to very, too very heavy rainfall and strong winds, causing damage to 1438 poplar trees Appellant was liable to pay the damage, as according to the Complainant, it was the Appellant who should have obtained the insurance cover and since the Appellant failed to do so, hence, the Appellant is liable to pay the damage. The matter was taken up by the Respondents/Complainant with the Appellant and when the m