Date of Filing: 08-03-2016                                   Date of Final Order: 19-06-2017

Sri Gurupada Mondal, President.

This is an application under Section 12 of CP Act, 1986 filed by  Sadar Uddin Ahamad against Chowdhury Potato Co., Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mathabhanga-I Block (Proforma OP) praying for refund of Rs.16,000/- (Potato Seed Amount), Rs.2,500/- for transportation charges, Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of cultivation of potato, Rs.30,000/- for mental pain and agony, Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

The case of the Complainant in short is that the Complainant purchased 10 bag of potato seeds  from the OP No.1 at a consideration price of Rs.16,000/- out of which he paid Rs.10,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount within a very short period.  The OP No.1 assured the Complainant that the quality of the potato seeds was of high quality and would give a good yield and to that effect the OP No.1 issued a Memo being No.46 dated 14.12.15.  It is alleged that the Complainant planted the said potato seeds in the month of December, 2015 in seven Bighas of land equivalent to 2.37 acres as per directions given by the OP.  But the said seeds were not germinated properly.  In the month of January, 2016, the Complainant noticed that the potato seeds supplied by the OPs were of inferior quality and he approached the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mathabhanga-I Block by submitting an application on 15.01.16 due to supply of inferior quality of seeds and the official of ADA, Mathabhanga-I Block visited the fields before ripening and observed that there was no uniformity of germination and submitted a report that the seeds purchased by the Complainant were defective.  The Complainant did not get any yield and as such, he sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/-.  As a result, the Complainant suffered mental pain and agony, causing pecuniary loss and unnecessary harassment.  Accordingly, the Complainant has filed this case for proper relief.

Summons upon OP No.2 and Proforma/ OP No.3 were duly served but they did not turn up to contest the case.  As such, the case was heard ex-parte against them.

The OP No.1 in contesting the case has filed w/v, denying all material allegations contending inter-alia, that the case is not maintainable, the case is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and barred by the law of limitation. Specific case of the OP No.1is that he is a potato merchant and he sold potato to different persons after purchasing potato from OP No.2 and he did not sell potato seeds but sold potato. It is alleged that the Complainant did not plant the said potato purchased from him (OP No.1) as there were many potato merchants in the State and for that reason he was not responsible and the allegations brought against him were baseless.  According to OP No.1, 10 bags of potato cannot be planted in seven bighas of land and three packets of potatoes are necessary to plant in one bigha of land. The Complainant planted the potato seeds in order to sell the crop in open market for commercial purpose. Further case of the OP is that the alleged report of the OP No.3 is false, and fabricated in collusion with the petitioner. The Op No.3 never collected the potato to send it as sample for testing at laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of West Bengal at Bansdroni and without proper and valid report, it was not possible to say that the potatoes were defective and there was no expert opinion to that effect. On the basis of aforesaid averment, the OP No.1 prays for dismissal of the case with costs.

In the light of the contention of both the parties, the following points necessarily come up for consideration to reach a just decision.

POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?

3. Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?

4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the parties at a length.

Point No.1.

The Complainant purchased 10 bags of potato from the OP No.1 at a consideration price of Rs.16,000/- out of which the Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- and promised to pay rest Rs.6,000/-. As such, there is a transaction between the seller and buyer, and it relates to goods on consideration. The buyer paid some consideration and promised to pay the rest. As such, we hold that the Complainant is a consumer. Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant purchased 10 bags of potato in order to plant in his seven bighas of land. According to the OP, the potato seed purchased by the Complainant to plant in his seven bighas of land amounts to commercial purpose. Such huge quantity of potatoes cannot consume by a single family. As per complaint petition as well as his evidence, it is evident to us that the Complainant is an agriculturist and earns his livelihood by cultivating his own land. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Complainant planted the potato for commercial purpose.

This point is decided in favour of the Complainant.

Point No.2.

The Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case. It reveals from the case record as well as the documents placed before this Forum, we find that the OP No.1 & 2 are not the residents within the district of Cooch Behar and the Branch Offices of the OP No.1 and 2 are not situated within the district of Cooch Behar. No relief has been claimed against OP No.3.

In this connection, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant cites a case decision reported in (2013) CJ 284 (N.C) wherein Hon’ble National Forum held – Cause of action had arisen at places which fell within the local limits of concerned District Forum.  It is also observed that Actual Cause of action confers jurisdiction of District Forum.  From the evidence on record, it reveals to us that the Complainant purchased the potato seeds from Dhupguri in the district of Jalpaiguri.  The OP No.2 is the resident of another place other than Cooch Behar.  But the Complainant planted the potatoes in his land situated in the district of Cooch Behar.  According to the Complainant, the said potato seeds were not properly germinated.  As such, we hold that cause of action had arisen in the district of Cooch Behar.  Hence, we hold that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

In one another case decision reported in (2014) C.J. 523 (NC), wherein Hon’ble National Commission held jurisdiction would lie with the District Forum where the cause of action has arisen.  In this case, the Complainant purchased the potato seeds from Dhupguri under Jalplaiguri district and thereafter, it was planted in the land of Complainant situated in the district of Cooch Behar but there was low germination in the potato seeds as well as the growth of potato plants.  As such, we hold that the cause of action has arisen in the district of Cooch Behar.  Therefore, this Forum has concurrent jurisdiction to try this case.

The claim of the Complainant is within the prescribed limit of this Forum.  As such, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.   

Point No.3 & 4.

Both the points are taken up together for consideration of discussion as well as the points are related with each other.

The case of the Complainant is that he purchased 10 bags of potato seeds from the OP No.1 at a consideration price of Rs.16,000/- out of which, he paid Rs.10,000/- and Rs.6000/- was promised to be paid later on.  Thereafter, he planted the said potato seeds in his seven bighas of land and before plantation, he had taken proper care and precaution for germination of seeds.  There was a low germination of potato seeds and the matter was intimated to the OP No.1 orally in time but there was no response from his end.  Then the matter was informed to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mathabhanga-I Block on 15.01.16, who visited the field and submitted a report that the potato seeds were defective.

On perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant, it reveals to us that the Complainant submitted an application to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mathabhanga-I Block  on 15.01.16 and the ADA, Mathabhanga Block-I received the said application on 19.01.16 alleging low germination of potato seeds.  Mr. Arun Saha, KPS visited the field of the Complainant and submitted a report on 22.01.16.  Mr. Arun Saha, KPS in his report mentioned 40% of potato seeds were not germinated.  40% of potato plants were attacked by “Kokrano disease” 20% potatoes were normal.  There is nothing mentioned in his report that the potato seeds were defective.  We have failed to understand how the Complainant came to a conclusion that the potato seeds were defective.  In such a situation, laboratory test is necessary to ascertain the correct picture of the potato seeds as to whether the potato seeds were defective or not.

In this connection, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that Laboratory test is not necessary in case of seeds.  To that effect, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant cites a case decision reported in (2012) CJ 385 (NC).  We have gone through the above noted case decision.  In the above cited case, Hon’ble National Commission held that documentary evidence clearly established that seeds actually supplied were not of the variety which was supposed to have been sold to the Complainant (Agriculturist).  Seed supplied was not the seed purchased.  It is not necessary for the Complainant (Agriculturist) to have send the seed to an appropriate laboratory for analysis/test, as an agriculturist is not expected to converse a portion of seed for such eventuality. Hon’ble National Commission further held that documentary evidence thus clearly establishes that the seed actually supplied was not the variety, which was supposed to have been sold to the Complainant.  In this case decision, the Complainant (agriculturist) wanted to purchase one kind of seed but he was supplied another kind of seed.  In such circumstances, laboratory test is not necessary.

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant cites one another case decision reported in (2014) CJ 666 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission held supply of poor quality of seeds deserves compensation.  In our view, this case decision will not be applicable in this case as it is not established that the potato seeds supplied by the OP are of low quality.

Moreover, Hon’ble National Commission in a case reported in 2017 (2) CPR 329 (NC) held – Agriculture seeds – inadequate germination – District Forum directed petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,48,000/- to the Complainant alongwith 8% interest and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.  Laboratory report clearly shows that there was no defect in seeds purchased by the Complainant – Laboratory reports coupled with fact that no cause for damage to crop was given in the report of field officers is more than adequate to rebut case set out by the Complainant alleging defect in seeds purchased by him – Impugned orders set aside and complaint dismissed.

In this case, we do not find any evidence on record that the alleged potato seeds were defective and for that reason, there was low germination while it was planted and 40% of the leaves were curled.  In order to prove the allegations, the potato seeds were required to send for laboratory test for its defectiveness.  Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get any decree as prayed for.

Both the issues are disposed of against the Complainant.

Hence,

            Ordered,

                        That the present complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No.1 and ex-parte against the other OPs. There is no order as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.

Dictated and corrected by me.