Haryana

StateCommission

A/195/2014

SHYAM LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS LTD - Opp.Party(s)

C.R.OLLA

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 195 of 2014

Date of Institution: 18.03.2014

Date of Decision : 09.11.2016

 

 

Shyam Lal son of Kanwar Singh resident of village Dehman Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

     

Appellant -Complainant

 Versus

 

1.      Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. (IFFCO), Shop No. 3, New Grain Market, Hisar Distt. Hisar through its Proprietor/Authorised person.

2.      Managing Director, Indian Farmers Forestory Development Co-operative Limited, FMDI, IFFCO Colony, Sector-17, Gurgaon

 

                                      Respondents -Opposite Parties

                                     

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. C.R. Olla, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Raman Gaur, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The complainant (Shyam Lal) has filed this appeal against order dated 20.11.2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.23 of 2013 whereby the complaint filed by him, was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (in short, ‘District Forum’). 

2.      Shyam Lal-complainant filed complaint alleging that on the assurance of opposite parties he purchased Guar seed HG -563 variety vide cash memo No. 146 dated 08.06.2012  for Rs.4,000/-. He sowed the seed in 5 acres of agricultural land.  He has prepared the land as per instructions of opposite parties. There being uneven growth of the plants, he approached the opposite parties for compensation but with no result.

3.      The complainant approached Agriculture Authorities by filing application for inspection. The Agriculture Department constituted a team of experts and also issued a notice to the opposite parties with regard to the proposed visit of the experts. The team so constituted submitted their report (Annexure-A-5) and estimated the loss to the extent of 45-50%.  The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum.

4.      The opposite parties contested the complaint inter alia stating that the Guar Seed sold was certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and that the seed was sold as produced by the manufacturer.  It was stated that the improper growth may be on account of various factors including high salt concentration, brackish water, moisture content, sowing method and physical conditions of soil.  A plea was also raised that no notice of proposed visit as required under the instructions issued by the Director Agriculture was issued to the opposite parties before the inspection.

5.      District Forum after hearing parties dismissed the complaint.

6.      Parties have been heard and file perused.

7.      Learned Counsel for complainant has urged that the District Forum has wrongly dismissed the complaint of complainant on the ground that the inspection was carried out by the officers of Agriculture Department who were not competent to inspect the fields in view of letter bearing No.52-70 dated 3^rd January, 2002 issued by the Director of Agriculture Department, Haryana.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the specific objections have been raised by the respondents before the District Forum that one representative of concerned agency and scientists of Agriculture Department were required to be present at the time of inspection. However, no notice was issued to opposite parties/respondents. In a similar situated case bearing First Appeal No.548 of 2014 titled “Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. (IFFCO) versus Nirmla Devi”, the respondents have taken the stand that no notice with regard to proposed visit by Agriculture Officers were issued to the respondents.  Similar is the situation in this case.  In order to avoid any conflicting conclusion, this Commission deems it appropriate to remand the case to the District Forum for fresh decision.  Accordingly, the case is remitted to the District Forum to decide it afresh taking into account all these facts into consideration. The appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to District Forum to decide complaint after affording opportunity to parties to lead their respective evidence.

 

 

Announced 09.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

DK