Haryana

StateCommission

A/1074/2015

MALIK BEEJ BHANDAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PALI RAM ALIAS PALE RAM - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL MEHRA

06 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1074 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 16.12.2015

Date of Decision: 06.03.2017

 

1.      Malik Beej Bhandar, Ambala Road, Beej Market, near Bus Stand, Sonepat thorough its prop. Sh.Dilbagh Singh.

2.      Tropica Seeds (P) Ltd, Regd. Office NO.22/137, 2^nd Floor, 7^th Main 1^st A cross BTM, Layout, 1^st Stage Banglore-560029 Karnataka.

                                                                             .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Pali Ram @ Pale Ram S/o Chandgi Ram, R/o Village Hassanpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    None for the parties.

 

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by complainant that he purchased seed of cucumber from respondent No.1  for a sum of Rs.6460/- vide bill dated 25.11.2014.  Respondent No.2 was the manufacturer of hybred seeds.  The germination of the seed was proper but growth of the seed was very poor. Doctors of O.P.No.2 visited his poly house and adviced him to spray some medicines for proper growth.  He purchased medicines as advised by them and sprayed on crop, but, after 20 days could not get any result.  On 07.01.2015  officials of Horticulture department visited the site twice and gave their report.  He incurred cost of about Rs. One lac on cucumber, spray, medicines, manure and fertilizers etc.  The O.Ps. be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.100000/- as expenses.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments.  It was alleged that complainant used to purchase seeds from O.P.No.1 since so many years. He did not sow the seeds as per instructions and guidelines issued by agriculture department. He had sown the different types of vegetables or crops in his poly house.   He procured report of Horticulture department in collusion with officials. No notice was given to them prior to inspection of poly house.  Objections about jurisdiction, locus standi etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 13.11.2015 and directed O.Ps. to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to complainant on account of loss of cucumber crop.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps.-appellants have preferred this appeal. 

5.      None has appeared on behalf of the parties since last two dates.  It is already 3.00 P.M.  The appeal relates to the year  2015. So there is no necessity to wait any more and matter is being decided on merits.

6.      As per report Ex.C-5 dated 23.01.2015 it is clear that complainant looked after crop properly and followed the proper procedure. Despite that the growth was not proper, so it cannot be presumed that there was any fault on the part of complainant. As per report dated 09.01.2015 it can be  safely presumed that seeds were defective. So O.Ps. cannot escape from their liability. If complainant did not follow the procedure as contained  in section 13 (1) (c ) of the Act there was no hitch for O.Ps. to make such request because ordinarily farmer use the entire stock.  It has been recently opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Umesh Singh Chandan Singh 2016 (1) CPR 698 that if any department has not followed proper procedure it does not mean that complaint of the consumer should be dismissed when his case is otherwise proved. It is specifically mentioned therein that there is no way a farmer can compel the authorities to follow the prescribed procedure.  An aggrieved person can only approach the concerned authorities and then it is their duty to follow the procedure and  get the seeds checked.  Similar view is also expressed by Hon’ble National Commission in  Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatics Plants (CIMAP) and Anr. Vs. Jagdish Singh  2016 (2) CLT 377.  It is opined therein that onus is also on O.P. to get the seeds tested from competent authority and produce the report.  Hon’ble National Commission opined in National Seed Corporation ltd. Vs. Meera and 3 ors. 2016 (4) CPR 226 that if after inspection of fields it is reported that the seeds were of different varieties or there was mixture the same cannot be thrown away particularly when the said report is not challenged by the O.Ps. or rebutted or controverted by any other evidence.  The present case is squarely covered by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in aforesaid case laws.  Complainant discharged his duty by approaching concerned authorities and producing relevant evidence, but, O.Ps. failed to rebut the same.  Findings of learned District Forum  are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and due verification.

 

March 06th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.