National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sonekaran Gladioli Growers vs Babu Ram on 10 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: II(2005)CPJ94(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service.
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant who is an agriculturist with a view to take up cultivation of Gladiola purchased 50,000 Gladiola bulbs of 'popular and promising American varieties' for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- which were of 7 varieties. According to the complainant when the bulbs were sown and when the complainant saw the growth of the plants not being of standard heights, he brought this to the notice of the petitioner who visited the spot. The field was also inspected by representative of the District Horticulture Development Officer, Karnal. The matter was also referred to Quality Control Inspector, District Agriculture Programme, Karnal. Based on these reports the complainant reportedly met the petitioner and demanded damages. When the matter was not getting resolved between the parties, a complaint was filed before the District Forum who after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, dismissed the complaint. On an appeal filed by the respondent/complainant before the State Commission, who allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,92,612.50 ps. as loss assessed by Shri babu Ram, Mr. S.P.S. Rana, District Horticulture Officer, Karnal along with interest @ 12% p.a. and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before us.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. We have on record the report of the District Horticulture Officer, which reads as follows:
"In respect of above subject it is stated that on 13.1.1997 after inspection of the field of Babu Ram I found that except white all other type which should be there are not there. Only 2% flowers are O.K. and other flowers which should be there are not there. Whereas there should be 10 to 14 flowers on one stick, but there are only 5 flowers.
It is submitted for your information and further necessary action."
4. We have also the report of the Quality Control Inspector, Karnal Office of Agriculture Assistant Director, Karnal, which reads as follows:
"By returning the full case of the farmers it is stated that after the sowing you had inspected in detail the grown crops of which the complete report is enclosed with the case. On the basis of the same necessary action is suggested."
5. It cannot be disputed that what the complainant purchased was Gladiola bulb. The dispute will hinge around the quality of material supplied. We have very carefully gone through these two reports which are reproduced earlier as also the examination of Mr. S.P.S. Rana and his cross-examination which is on record. There is not even a whisper, about the quality of bulb supplied one way or the other. As per cross-examination of Mr. Rana, the germination of the crop was all right, hence till germination stage no fault could be found. The flowering is a function of several agriculture cropping practices as also the use of inputs, climate, watering etc. There is no material brought on record to say that the prescribed practices was followed and inputs used from the very beginning. It appears that the complainant was aiming on the quality of seeds and one of point taken up, related to the bulbs not having been kept under the controlled conditions (cold storage) or otherwise. There is certificate produced by the petitioner that the flower seed material was kept in the cold storage till may 1996. Be that as it may the seed quality needs to be determined at two-stages--one, the germination and the other flowering. Since the germination was not faulted with by any of the horticulture staff, the only other deficiency would relate to non flowering. Horticulture officers, in our view, would be the 'Experts' to comment on deficiency, on the part of the petitioner one way or the other. At no stage or in any words, they have commented upon the seed (bulb) material to draw any adverse inference against the petitioner. In none of the reports brought on the record, and in the deposition as well as the cross-examination of Mr. S.P.S. Rana, nowhere it stated that the quality of bulb was bad. In view of the absence of any clear finding, commenting upon the quality of the bulb supplied; we are unable to sustain the finding returned by the State Commission fastening the liability on the petitioner just because the heights of the plants remained short. On an unsupported or unproven basis no inference can be drawn against the petitioner for supplying any poor quality of material. The deficiency in such case cannot be assumed, it needs to be proved. In the present instance, the complainant has failed to prove as none of the expert reports on record supports the claim of non-standard quality of seed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.N. Shankara Shastry v. The Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka, III (2004) SLT 766=II (2004) CPJ 37 (SC)=2004 SAR (Civil) 641. We have gone ought this judgment very carefully and found what the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with in this case "whether the State Commission was right and justified in reducing the amount of compensation for the reasons recorded...". In the Cited case what Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the amount of compensation in the case of established case of failure of crop/germination; that is not the case here. The facts are entirely different, hence this judgment (supra) has no applicability in the present case.
6. In view of above discussion, we are unable to sustain the order of the State Commission which is set aside as in our view, no expert evidence has been brought on record by the complainant to prove his case. The complaint is dismissed.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.