Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/13/125

Babir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER ,M/S Plantsman Seeds - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. J S Walia

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

     (Remanded case)

 

                                           Consumer Complaint No.: 125 of 05.08.2013

                                           Restored on                    : 27.04.2016

                                           Date of decision               : 15.11.2016

 

                              

1. Balvir Singh, aged about 53 years, son of Bakhtawar Singh,

2. Mani Singh, aged about 25 years, son of Sh. Balvir Singh

 

 Both residents of Village Bikkon, P.O. Ghanauli, Tehsil & District     Ropar  

 

                                                                             ......Complainants

 

                                             Versus

 

M/s Plantsman's Seeds, Rajbaha Road, Patiala-147001 (Punjab) through its Proprietor/Manager     

                                                                                   ....Opposite Party

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                            Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             SMT. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. J.P.S.Dher, Advocate, counsel for the complainant

 Sh. N.S. Heera, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party  

 

ORDER

                                      SMT. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Balvir Singh & Sh. Mani Singh have jointly  filed this complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainants is that complainant No.2, who is son of complainant No.1, cultivates his land bearing Khewat No.53/38 min, Khatauni No.59, Khasra No.12//13/4(1-19), and 12//14/3(2-9) situated in village Bikkon in Tehsil & District Roper. The complainant No.2, on 24.1.2013 purchased seeds of flowers i.e. Marigold Gulzafri Orange-PM09072 and Marigold Gulzafri-Basanti-PM009143 for plantation in the land in his occupation, owned by complainant No.1. In 3 Kanals 4 Marlas land out of above said land, as advised by representative of the O.P., the complainant No.2 had sown the said seeds and after sapling were ready for plantation after 20 days, he planted the same in his land, but no flower has emerged out because seeds supplied to complainant No.2 were of inferior quality. The complainants have suffered loss in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- due to supply of substandard seeds by the O.P., who has failed to acceded to the request of complainant No.2, to provide compensation inspite of being approached directly and through service of notice dated 18.6.2013, as such, due to said reason the complainant has suffered mental & physical harassment and financial loss, therefore, O.P. be directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for supply of inferior quality of seed and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to him along with interest @ 18% per annum from 24.1.2013 till date of realization and also costs of litigation.  

3.      As none appeared on behalf of O.P. and it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.9.2013. After hearing the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant, the complaint was allowed vide order dated 17.10.2013. However, on filing of appeal by the O.P., against the said order, the Hon’ble State Commission, vide its order dated 11.04.2016 passed in FA No. 496 of 2014 had set aside the order dated 17.10.2013, passed by this Forum and remanded back the case with the directions to this Forum, to decide the complaint, afresh after affording one opportunity to the O.P., to file written version and to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.    

4.       In compliance of the order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, O.P. appeared before this Forum filed written version taking preliminary objections; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint as any dispute regarding bill and seeds bags are subject to court at Patiala jurisdiction; that the present complaint is not maintainable because the complainants have purchased the seeds in question for commercial purpose and are not Consumer as envisaged in the Act; that neither the sample of seeds in question got tested at any stage nor any inspection was done by any expert; that there is no adequate evidence that the complainants have taken due care for sowing the seeds as per recommended schedule i.e. timely sowing the seeds, preparing the field by ploughing and transplanting, fertilizers and timely irrigation etc; that there was no genetic failure of the seeds; that it is admitted case of the complainants that seeds after sowing germinated, but plants did not bear any flowers; that there may be so many reasons for non emergence of flowers and one of the reasons can be leaf spot disease, which is very common and also attack of other insect pests. The attacked flower buds remain unopened, whereas in opened flowers the larvae tend to feed reproductive parts along with petals. The contention of the complainants regarding defect in seeds has no legs to stand; that the complainants never

informed it regarding inferior quality of seeds; that the other buyers to whom  the  seeds from the same lot were sold had not made any complaint;  On merits, It is stated that someone had purchased the seeds on 24.1.2013, against  proper bill for a sum of Rs.300/- from it. It is denied that the representative of the O.P. never forced the complainants to purchase seeds of any particular variety. In fact on seeds bags, it is clearly mentioned that seed is meant for planting by professional growers, who are familiar with this variety. Under the heading Notice to Buyers, it is clearly written that "any claim for alleged  defects should be presented to the company without delay. The amount of the seeds can only be refunded provided the buyers returned the sealed packets immediately after its purchase. It is further stated that it gives no guarantee of crop performance. Any recommendation for use of the seeds does not constitutes a warrant express or implied, as it is subject to climate, environment, management and soil  condition and that all dispute are subject to court at Patiala, Punjab. So it is clear that the complainants must have read and understood the notice to buyers, regarding liability before opening the packet of the seeds. It is further stated that the complainants seems not to be professional grower and not familiar with this variety. The complainants had not taken due care for planting the seeds, as written in the booklet printed and published by Punjab Agriculture University. In the said booklet, it is clearly mentioned that February planting nursery is to be raised under polythene cover and sowing has to be done on first January, so that seedlings may get ready for transplantation by 15^th February. In the instant case, the seeds were purchased on 24.1.2013 itself, thereafter, same were sown after the prescribed time. It is admitted case of the complainants that the seeds after sowing germinated but alleged that plants did not bear the flowers. So it is clear that there is no genetic failure of the seeds. No complaint has been received by the O.P. qua the quality of the seeds from the other buyers. It is denied that the O.P. had sold inferior quality of the seeds to the complainant knowing-fully well that the same will not yield any flowers and thus cheated the complainant and complainant suffered a loss of 2 Lacs. The complainant has produced a wrong, false and frivolous affidavit of one Jagtar Singh. It is further stated that complainant never approached to the O.P. in this regard. The O.P. also did not receive any alleged legal notice dated 18.6.2013. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with cost. 

5.          On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has suffered a statement, to the effect that he does not want to any documents in evidence, the affidavit and documents already filed in previous evidence may be read as part of my evidence and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Saleem Khan, Manager M/s Plantsman's Seeds Ex.OP1, along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence.

 6.               We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

7.                 At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that before going into the merits of the case, the Hon’ble Forum has to determine, as to whether, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. He further submitted that an ex-parte order was passed by this Forum on 17.10.2013. On filing of appeal by it, against the said ex-parte order, the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, had set aside the order dated 17.10.2013, passed by this Forum, and remanded back the case, with a direction to this Forum, to decide the case in accordance with law. He further submitted that the complainant has purchased the seeds in question vide bill dated 24.1.2013, from the Plantsman’s Seeds, Patiala. On the bill itself, it is categorically mentioned that the dispute regarding this bill and seed bags are subject to court at Patiala jurisdiction. The complainant has impleaded Plantsman Seeds, Patiala, as O.P., which is running its business in the territory of District Patiala and if the complainant has any grievance against the said O.P. then he should have approached the Hon’ble District Forum, Patiala, for redressal of his grievance and not this Forum and prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed for want to territorial jurisdiction. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in the case of M/s Sethi Agriculture Store Vs Mehar Singh, decided on 20.3.2013.
               On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainants submitted that the complainants were the resident of District Ropar and have sown seeds in question in their fields situated at District Ropar, as such, a part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of District Ropar. Thus, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. In support of his version, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case of Singh Engineering Works Vs S.K. Bluemetal Works, 2007 (2) ALT 1.

          Admittedly, the seeds in question were purchased from the shop namely Plantsman’s seeds situated at Patiala. The complainant has failed to prove that O.P. is carrying on business within the territory of District Ropar. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the parties were duly taken into consideration. In the case of M/s Sethi Agriculture Store’s (Supra), by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, by relying upon the judgment of “Hari Chand Vs Bayer India Limited” 2000 (I) CPC 69, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab had held that jurisdiction of the District forum to entertain the complaint is to be determined under Section 11(2) of the Act. The perusal of the provisions would show that it is not the residence of the complainant or place where he used the purchased goods, that is to consider for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. Since the pesticide was purchased from Mukatsar and same was found defective, it was Mukatsar District Forum, which was to entertain the complaint and also by making reliance on the judgment, passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, in the case of Yash Pal Vs M/s Durga Seeds Store & Anr. 2007 (1) CPC 100, wherein, it was held that the complaint at District Forum, Chandigarh, was maintainable, from where the seeds were purchased and not before the District Forum, Panchkula, in the territory of which the seeds were sown, had held that the  District Forum at Sirsa, from where the complainant had purchased the seeds, had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and District Forum, Mansa, where the seeds were sown, had no such territorial jurisdiction. It may be
stated that the principle of law had already been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of ‘Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs Director, Health Service Haryana, & Ors,’ 2013 (3) CLT 455 (SC), wherein, it was held that the Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from statute. If the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity. In view of the judgments referred above, we hold that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Accordingly, we dispose of the complaint with liberty to the complainant to avail remedy before the appropriate Court/Forum for redressal for their grievance and to seek condonation of delay for the period their complaint remained pending before this Forum, as permissible under the law. 

11.               The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                         (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 15.11.2016                                          PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.