National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Nu Genes Pvt. Ltd., vs Ishwar Son Of Sh. Ram Sarup & Anr. on 21 May, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4275 OF 2012 (From the order dated 05.09.2012 in First Appeal No. 1458/2011 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) NU Genes Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.18, 1st Floor, NCL Enclave, NH-7, Medchal Road, Secunderabad 55 through Assistant Manager Ashit Kumar Choudhary ... Petitioner Versus 1. Ishwar son of Sh. Ram Sarup, resident of Village Kheri Daulatpur, Tehsil Khera Khera, District Bhiwani, Haryana 2. M/s. India Sales Corporation, 24, New Anaj Mandi, Hansi, District Hissar through its proprietor . Respondents BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner For the Respondent (s) Mr. Naveen Kumar Chauhan, Advocate Ex-parte PRONOUNCED ON : 21st MAY, 2014 O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 05.09.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 1458 of 2011, NU Genes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ishwar son of Ram Sarup, vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar in Consumer Complaint No. 441 of 2009, allowing the said consumer complaint, was upheld.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No.1-Ishwar son of Ram Sarup filed the consumer complaint dated 07.10.2009 before the District Forum, saying that he along with Bhagat Singh, son of Mohan Singh, resident of Village Kheri Daulatpur, District Bhiwani went to purchase seeds from Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.2, M/s. India Sales Corporation and that he purchased 3 Kgs. Nitya RH-10, Hybrid Paddy Seeds at Rs. 500/- per Kg. This purchase was made on the assurance of the petitioner/opposite party No.2, who is producer of the seeds that they were good quality seeds. The seeds were purchased on 08.5.2009 and were sown in their fields after necessary preparation in Khasra/Killa No. 191//14/2, 15, 192//11, 12 and 13 at Village Kheri Daulatpur. However, after some time, he found that the paddy plants were mixed with some other crops/varieties and the percentage of variety RH-10 was very little. It has further been stated in the complaint that the seeds were sown in 3 acres of land. The complainant then brought the matter to the notice of the OP-1/Respondent No.2, who visited the spot along with the representatives of petitioner/OP-2 and after seeing the crop, assured to give proper compensation. However, later on, they refused to pay the same, following which the consumer complaint in question was filed, claiming a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for preparation of fields, fertilizers and irrigation etc., Rs.1.20 lacs for damages suffered and Rs.5,000/- as counsel fee.
3. In the reply filed before the District Forum by opposite party No.1/respondent No.2, the allegations levelled in the complaint were denied and it was stated that the opposite parties never visited the fields of the complainant. It was also stated that if there had been any mixing in the seeds of paddy, this factor could have come to the notice of the farmer, while the plants were at the nursery stage, and he could have avoided to put mixed plants, while transplanting the paddy seedlings. The complaint was therefore an afterthought. It was also stated that 6-8 Kg. of seeds were required for sowing in one acre of land. The said seeds were in a packed and sealed condition at the time of sale and were manufactured by a duly licensed agency.
4. The District Forum, after the receipt of the complaint, passed an order dated 19.10.2009, directing the Deputy Director Agriculture, Bhiwani to constitute a Committee of Experts, which would inspect the fields in question, after giving notice to both the parties and then to report to the District Forum. The said committee was constituted on 06.11.2009, consisting of Deputy Director Agriculture, Bhiwani, Senior Scientist, Krishi Vigyan Kendra and Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Bhiwani. The inspection report made by the Committee was considered by the District Forum and vide order dated 29.7.2011, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- along with Rs.3,300/- as cost of litigation. An appeal was made against this order before the State Commission by both the opposite parties and vide impugned order dated 05.9.2012, the said appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. It is against this order that the present petition has been made by opposite party No.2/petitioner NU Genes Pvt. Ltd.
5. A notice of the revision petition was sent to complainant/respondent No.1 and opposite party No.1/Respondent No.2.
However, they did not put in appearance before this Commission. The petition was ordered to be admitted on 30.08.2013 and notice for final hearing was again issued to both the respondents. However, both of them did not appear and hence, were proceeded against ex-parte.
6. During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the District Forum vide their order dated 19.10.2009, had directed the Deputy Director Agriculture, Bhiwani to constitute a Committee of Experts, which would inspect the fields in question after giving notice to both the parties. The inspection report prepared by the said committee had been placed on record, which depicts very clearly that no notice was sent to the petitioner while making the said inspection. The consumer fora below had therefore taken an erroneous view in relying upon the said report. The learned counsel further stated that as admitted by the complainant himself, he had purchased only 3 Kg. of paddy seeds and planted the same in 3 acre of land; whereas 6-8 Kgs. of seeds are required for one acre of land. The learned counsel has further drawn our attention to an instruction booklet published by the petitioner, depicting the characteristics of various varieties of paddy. In so far as RH-10 variety is concerned, the ripening time of the crop is 110 to 117 days.
The Committee of Experts had made inspection, after the said period was over. Moreover, the inspection report does not find mention of the kind of plants with which the crop in question was mixed. In the light of these facts, the petition should be allowed and the orders of the consumer fora below should be set aside.
7. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to an order passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 3179 of 2010, J.K. Agre Genetics Ltd. versus Bhoop Singh & Anr., saying that the onus to prove that the seeds were defective or spurious, was on the complainant.
8. We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The State Commission observed in the impugned order that there was a delay of 40 days in filing appeal before them and there were no sufficient grounds to condone the delay. However, they dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay as well as on merits. The petitioners had filed an application for condonation of delay before the State Commission, saying that there was a delay of filing the appeal of 14 days only and not 40 days. The delay occurred because the petitioner was under the impression that the limitation for filing the appeal was sixty days. In view of the position explained in the application for condonation of delay before the State Commission and the arguments before us, the delay in filing appeal before the State Commission is condoned.
9. Further, it is mentioned in the complaint itself that the complainant purchased 3 Kg. of paddy seeds and planted them in 3 acres of land; whereas according to the petitioner, 6 to 8 Kg. of seeds are required for one acre of land. The quantity of seeds purchased, was therefore, highly insufficient for the purpose and so, it becomes clear that there must be vacant spaces / patches where other plants or weeds etc., must have grown. A presumption can also be there that before transplanting, the complainant mixed the three Kgs. of seeds purchased from the opposite parties with some other variety. The inspection report should have taken note of this aspect and given their views on the same.
9. A perusal of the inspection report indicates that the Committee found 34% to 38% of plants of different kind. However, the committee has nowhere given the description of such plants of different kind. It is normally expected from a Committee consisting of Experts in Agriculture to indicate about the plants / variety which was found mixed with the main crop.
10. A very important point to be noted in the present case is that as per standard practice, a farmer is required to grow nursery plants of paddy before transplantation of paddy in the main fields.
If the complainant had grown such nursery plants, the mixing in the seeds of paddy would have come to his notice instantaneously and he would have refrained from transplanting the mixed plants in the main fields. Even after the transplantation, if the farmer found some mixed plants or inferior quality plants, he could have removed the same and done the transplantation again, during the sowing period, but nothing of this sort was done.
11. Further, it is clear from record that the complaint in question is dated 07.10.2009 and as per the order of the District Forum, a direction was made to constitute a Committee of Experts for spot inspection.
The said Committee was constituted on 06.11.2009 as stated in the inspection report. Obviously, the inspection must have been done on or after 06.11.2009.
As stated in the instruction booklet made by the opposite parties, the ripening time for the said variety of paddy is 110 to 117 days. If the crop had been transplanted in the month of May or June, it would have ripened before October and hence, the inspection carried out in the month of November has no significance.
12. It is further observed that the District Forum, while passing their order dated 19.10.2009, had directed the constitution of the Committee of experts and also stated that the said Committee would inspect the fields in question after giving notice to both the parties. The inspection report submitted by this Committee nowhere states whether any notice was given to the parties before carrying out the inspection. It is stated that the complainant was present on the spot, but the petitioner should also have been given the chance to present his view point, while making inspection. The inspection report, therefore, suffers from a major lacuna that it was not made in the presence of both the parties, as directed by the District Forum.
13. It is clear therefore from the above that facts stated in the complaint and inspection report lack credibility and should not have been relied upon by the consumer fora below.
It is evident therefore, that the State Commission and the District Forum have taken an erroneous view of the matter and allowed the complaint.
14. Based on the discussion above, this revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside and the consumer complaint in question stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
..Sd/-
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER SB/4