Anupam Dasgupta, Member

First Appeals no. 104 and 126 of 2004

These two appeals challenge a common order dated 10.02.2004 passed by the Chandigarh Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 30 of 1998. By this order, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed as under:

“It is not disputed the complainants suffered a total loss of poplar plants out purchased by him @ Rs.52.50 per plant. All these plants were to be properly cared for and proper guidance or service was to be provided by OPs no. 1 and 2 to the complainant, which they failed to provide and the plants were destroyed and the complainant was put to loss thereof. The OPs no.1 and 2 are thus liable for the deficiency in service on their part. However, under Clause 8 of the Agreement, the liability of OPs 1 and 2 is to the extent of 10% of the ETPs sold under the Agreement and they are required to replace these plants to the complainant, which it failed to do so. The complainant would thus be entitled to get the value of 10% of 1000 plants i.e. of 100 plants @ Rs.52.50 per plant, which would come to Rs.5250/-. Apart from t