| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 77 of 28-02-2013 Decided on : 15-03-2013
Manjeet Singh S/o Gurjant Singh R/o Village Raike Kalan, Tehsil & District Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
Gupta Fertilizers, Shop No. 18. Janta Bhavan Road, Sirsa Club, Sirsa through its proprietor Sh. Surinderpal S/o Sh. Gopi Chand. Sh. Surinderpal S/o Sh. Gopi Chand Proprietor, Gupta Fertilizers R/o House No. 305, Aggersan Colony, Sirsa Haryana. M/s. Antal Agro Seeds, Chourmastpur, Registered Office, 207 New Mandi Township, Ambala City, through its Sole Proprietor Hardeep Singh S/o Ranjit Singh Hardeep Singh S/o Ranjit Singh Sole Proprietor of M/s Antal Agro Seeds R/o House No. 218, Sector 9, Ambala City. ...... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, counsel for the complainant. Counsel for opposite parties : Not summoned.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that in the first week of May, 2012, opposite parties conducted a sale promotion camp in Village Raike Kalan to promote the sale of their paddy seed variety PB-06-1401 F/S prepared by opposite party No. 3. They claimed that if the farmers sow their seeds, they would get heavy yield of 30 Qntls. per acre and also that the crop produced from said seed is resistant to all types of plant diseases. The complainant and several other farmers fell into trap of opposite parties and believing their claims, they got ready to purchase paddy seed variety PB-6-1401 F/S from them. The complainant alleged that as they were purchasing the seed in bulk, the opposite parties promised to supply it at Village Raike Kalan. In the First week of May, 2012, the complainant booked order for the said paddy seeds with opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2 and on 15-5-2012, 10 bags weighing 10 Kgs each i.e. total 100 Kg seeds were supplied to the complainant at his village by opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2 vide receipt No. 482 for Rs. 5500/- in total. The complainant further alleged that he remained in touch with the opposite parties and fully adhered to the prescriptions/procedures advised by them for raising the crop and followed the provided norms for sowing, irrigating, spraying pesticides and insecticides, adding fertilizers and doing all other agriculturist activities for proper upbringing of the crop. The complainant observing the abnormality in crop height and failure to bear panicles, informed the opposite parties and requested them to provide some solutions. The opposite parties asked the complainant to prune the paddy crop from its top and to wait for some time and accordingly, acting on their advice, he pruned his paddy crop and waited for some time, but even after passage of time, the crop did not improve and failed to develop panicles. The complainant alongwith some respectable persons of the village met the opposite parties on three occasions but they adopted evasive approach and kept making false assurances. On realizing that there is a complete failure of crop, the complainant and other farmers of the village, who had raised crop from the same variety of seeds made representations, to Chief Agriculture Officer, Punjab Agricultural University, Bathinda on 26-09-2012 for obtaining expert opinion on paddy crop failure. Acting on the said presentations, Sh. Sushil Kumar, Agriculture Officer, Block Sangat alongwith Hardev Singh JE Sangat visited the fields of complainant on 1-10-2012 and made report No. 562 dated 8-10-2012 to the effect that crop was found to be in healthy state but still it did not develop panicles and if rare plants developed panicles, they were also filled with empty rice seeds. Sh. Sushil Kumar, Agriculture Officer, Block Sangat alongwith Hardev Singh, JE Sangat again visited the fields of complainant on 19-10-2012 and reported 90% crop failure vide his report No. 586 dated 22-10-2012 to Chief Agriculture Officer, District Bathinda. The complainant and his co-villagers, who had purchased the above said variety of seeds from the opposite parties also submitted an application to the SSP Bathinda, and on the basis of inquiry, FIR No. 50 dated 25-10-2012 was registered against the opposite parties at Police Station Nandgarh under Section 420 IPC. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties are liable to refund the entire amount received from him alongwith compensation on account of crop failure. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 19,89,000/- on all accounts alongwith cost. We have gone through the entire file and preliminary hearing is given to the learned counsel for the complainant, at length. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the seeds purchased from the opposite parties were sown by the complainant in his land situated at Village Raike Kalan, District Bathinda. The opposite parties held a sales promotion camp at Raike Kalan and received payment from the complainant there at Raike Kalan, District Bathinda, hence this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. Section 11 (2) (a)(b)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, reads as under :-
“(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:-
(a) The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain, or (b) Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office), or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” In the case in hand, the complainant has alleged that the opposite parties conducted a sale promotion camp in Village Raike Kalan, District Bathinda, to promote the sale of their paddy seeds and he booked his seeds from Bathinda and the seeds in question were delivered to him at Bathinda, but he has failed to place on file any document to prove that any part of cause of action took place at Bathinda. The bill of paddy seeds has been issued from Sirsa (Haryana). The documents placed on file by the complainant reveals that the complainant directly purchased the seeds in question from Sirsa and the seeds were prepared at Ambala. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove on file that any cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen at Bathinda. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in case titled B.M.Singhal Vs. M/s. Track on Line, Net-4, India Pvt. Ltd. 2004(1) Judicial Reports Consumer 64, wherein, it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11 – Territorial jurisdiction – Internet Contract – Domain name – Registration of – Online offer – Appellant contacted on internet (from Gwalior) for registration – Gave an offer, acceptance of which was to be made at Delhi – Contract was to be executed in digital form which was not executed –Cannot be said that there was concluded contract on internet at Gwalior – Respondent carries on business from Delhi – Does not have any office at Gwalior – District Forum, Gwalior had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.” The support can also be sought from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case 2010(1) CLT 252 titled Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited wher-ein, it has been held that:-
“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(2) – Territorial jurisdiction – Insurance claim – Cause of action – The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala – The Insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala – Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction – State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint – Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 17(2)(b) (as amended in the year 2003) – Territorial jurisdiction – Expression 'branch office' Held that the expression 'branch office' in amended Section 17(2)(b) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.” In view of the above discussion, we are of the of the considered view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. Accordingly merits of the case are not being touched. Thus, this complaint is hereby dismissed in limine without any order as to costs. It is made clear that complainant is at liberty to approach the competent Forum/authority to get his grievances redressed, if so advised and permitted by law.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced 15-03-2013 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President (Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
