Haryana

StateCommission

A/548/2014

Indian Farmers Fertilizers - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nirmala Devi - Opp.Party(s)

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :  548 of 2014

Date of Institution: 27.06.2014

Date of Decision :  09.11.2016

 

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

 

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Nirmla Devi aged about 47 years, widow of Sh. Vijender Singh resident of VPO Siwani Bolan Block Agrodha, Tehsil and Distt. Hisar.

 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Raman Gaur, Advocate for the appellants

Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The opposite parties have filed this appeal against order dated 23.05.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 514 of 2012 whereby the complaint filed by Nirmla Devi- Complainant was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (in short, ‘District Forum’).  The opposite parties were directed to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 09.11.2014 till payment besides Rs.5000/- as damages and Rs.11,00/- for litigation expenses.

2.      Nirmala Devi-complainant filed complaint alleging that on the assurance of opposite parties she purchased Guar seed HG -563 variety vide cash memo No. 021 dated 13.06.2012  for Rs.6,000/-. She sowed the seed in 3 acres of agricultural land.  She has prepared the land as per instructions of opposite parties. There being uneven growth of the plants, she 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-1 and estimated the loss to the extent of 50-60%.  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 allowed the complaint and issued directions as reproduced in earlier part.

6.      Parties have been heard and file perused.

7.      Learned Counsel for appellants has contended that specific objections have been raised by the appellants before the District Forum that no notice was ever issued to the opposite parties before inspection.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent has produced a copy of the notice purported to have been issued by the Agriculture Officers before inspection.

9.      Hon’ble National Commission in a similarly situated case reported as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jagan Nath Revision Petition No. 2925 of 2008 wherein also the document was not placed before the District Forum and the document was placed on the file of State Commission in appeal along with an application for permission to allow additional evidence.  The document was taken into consideration while deciding the appeal without deciding the application for permission to lead additional evidence. Hon’ble National Commission set aside orders of State Commission and remanded the case to State Commission to first decide the application and then decide the appeal after giving opportunity to both the parties. 

10.    Since this document i.e. notice of proposed visit by Agriculture Officers was not placed before the District Forum, it would be appropriate to remand the case. The case is remitted to the District Forum to decide it afresh after taking into consideration the effect of said document. The appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted to District Forum to decide complaint after considering the document and affording opportunity to opposite parties to rebut the evidence.

 

 

11.    The statutory amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

12.    Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 09.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

DK