BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.216/14.
Date of instt.: 03.11.2014.
Date of Decision: 27.11.2015.
Babu Ram son of Sh. Kewal Singh, resident of Village Keorak, Tehsil Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s. Tarsem Kumar & Company, 25-New Anaj Mandi, Ishmailabad, Distt. Kurukshetra (Haryana) through its Proprietor/Partner.
2. Haryana Kissan Seva Kender, Jind Road, near Railway Crossing, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal through its Manager.
3. M/s. Spriha Bio Sciences Private Limited, 227-A, Road No.36, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad-500033 through its Managing Director.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Devender Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Pawan Gautam, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.
Sh. Kabir Dhall, Adv. for Ops No.2 & 3.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased 7 packing of paddy seeds pusa-1121 bearing batch No.44495008 for a consideration of Rs.500/- each i.e. total Rs.3500/- vide bill No.2340 dt. 22.05.2014 from Op No.1. It is alleged that the complainant under the supervision and guidance of the specialist officials of Ops and as per instructions, sown the said purchased seeds. It is further alleged that the standing crops of seven acre of the complainant is ready for harvesting but surprisingly, there is mixture of more than one variety Pusa-1121. It is further alleged that the complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal, as such, the standing crops of complainant was inspected by a team in the presence of complainant, Ops and other respectable persons vide report dt. 17.09.2014. It is further alleged that the said report dt. 17.09.2014 of Block Agriculture Officer, concerned Plant Protection Officer, ADO and Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer of Distt. Kaithal is prepared on the basis of Randum Formula and as per report found 30-35% mixture of other varieties instead of delivered and sown Pusa-1121. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Op No.1 filed raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, it is stated that the answering Op is only the distributor and there is no responsibility and supervisions of the answering Op, as alleged by the complainant. The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the complainant had purchased the paddy seeds from Ishmailabad Distt. Kurukshetra; that the complainant has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and without compliance of same, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone; that the complainant has purchased the seed in question for commercial activity, as such, the matter is outside the jurisdiction of this Forum; that even otherwise, the germination and yield of the seed depends on various factors like the time of sowing, type of soil, practices adopted for sowing, the quality and the time and manner of application of insecticides and pesticides and in the absence of all these facts, it cannot be ascertained about the cause of alleged less germination (though denied) or uneven germination or loss. Even otherwise, the alleged mixing as shown in the report can be for numerous reasons not attributed to the answering Op viz. fault of unskilled labour or grower. The facts can be ascertained through laboratory tests and lengthy and detailed evidence which cannot be decided summarily and mandates civil trial by way of examination and cross-examination. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Op No.3 filed the written statement on the same line as followed by Op No.2 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A and documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and closed evidence on 30.09.2015. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.RB to Ex.RD and closed evidence on 16.10.2015. Ops No.2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.RW3/A, Ex.RW4/A, Ex.RW5/A, Ex.RW6/A and documents Ex.RW4/B, Ex.RW5/B and Ex.RW6/B and closed evidence on 26.10.2015.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that on 27.08.2015, the respondent No.2 (hereinafter called as Op No.2) moved an application for striking down his name from the list of respondents which was kept pending till the final decision of the complaint. In the said application, it is alleged by the Op No.2 that there is no allegation in the complaint against him (Op No.2) and in fact the Op No.2 has neither sold the seed in question nor manufactured the same and he has been falsely impleaded as party in the present complaint only to make the wrong jurisdiction of this Forum. In reply of the said application, the complainant has not mentioned any cogent reason that how the Op No.2 was a necessary party. From the complaint and documents placed on the file, it is clear that the seed in question was purchased by the complainant from Op No.1 and Op No.3 is the manufacturer of the same. There is no allegation in the complaint against Op No.2 except that the Op No.2 is full seller of Op No.1. But the complainant has failed to prove on the file that how the Op No.2 is the full seller of Op No.1. So, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Op No.2 has been falsely impleaded as party in the complaint, which deserves to be deleted/struck down from the array of Ops and so, we hereby order to delete the Op No.2 from the array of Ops.
8. When the name of Op No.2 has been deleted/struck down from the array of Ops, then the question arises whether this Forum at Kaithal has jurisdiction to try this complaint or not. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that as the seed in question was sown in the Village Keorak, Distt. Kaithal, so, this Forum at Kaithal has jurisdiction to try the present complaint. To rebut the contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant, ld. Counsels for the Ops No.1 and 3 has vehemently argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint as neither the seed was purchased nor the same was manufactured within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In support of their contention, they produced the computerized copy of order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.182 of 2004/A titled as Kamakashya Prasad Vs. Lalji Sah Krishi Kendra & others decided on 10.03.2004, wherein the petitioner had purchased 20 Kg. Sunflower seed from Lalji Sah Krishi Kendra, respondent/Opposite party No.1 on payment of Rs.2400/- on 10.07.1995 for the purpose of cultivation. The seed was sown in land in village Pathrol in District Deoghar but it did not germinate. Alleging deficiency in service amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was claimed by way of compensation by the petitioner. The Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-
“Submission advanced by Shri B.K.Mathur for petitioner was that as the sunflower seed purchased from respondent No.1 was sown in the land situated in Village Pathrol in Distt. Deoghar, the District Forum at Deogarh had the territorial jurisdiction to try complaint. In support of submission, reliance was placed on the decision in the State of Punjab Vs. Nohar Chand, AIR 1994 SC 1492. Under Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the “Act”) a complaint is to be instituted 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 the 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 the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case either the permission of District Forum is given or the opposite parties who did 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. It is not in dispute that sunflower seed was purchased from respondent No.1 at Bhagalpur, respondent No.1 has been carrying business at Bhagalpur and does not have any branch at Deoghar. That being so, no part of cause of action to file complaint had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum at Deoghar. Place at which seed was sown, did not have any relevance in the matter. Nohar Chand’s case (Supra) rendered with reference to Sections 179 & 180 Cr.P.C. has no applicability as territorial jurisdiction in the present case has to be decided with reference to said sub section (2) of Section 11. Thus, while repelling said submission, we confirm the finding recorded by fora below that District Forum at Deoghar did not have territorial jurisdiction to try complaint.”
In support of their plea, the Ops have adduced another computerized copy of order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab bearing First Appeal No.1115 of 2011 titled as M/s. Seth Agriculture Store Vs. Mehar Singh decided on 20.03.2013, wherein the seed was purchased from Sirsa and sown in District Mansa and the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab has held that only the District Forum at Sirsa had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and District Forum, Mansa had no such territorial jurisdiction. Both these authorities are fully applicable to the facts of present case. On the contrary, the complainant has not produced any authority.
9. In the present case also, the seed was purchased by the complainant from Op No.1, who carries on business at Ishmailabad, Distt. Kurukshetra and Op No.3 carries on business at Hyderabad. In view of the above-mentioned authorities, the place where the seed was sown has no relevance in the matter. So, we are of the considered view that this Forum at Kaithal has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.
10. Thus, as a sequel of foregoing discussion and without going into any other controversy on merits in the matter, we dispose off the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Forum/Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt. 27.11.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
