National Consumer Disputes Redressal
India Seed House vs Ramjilal Sharma And Anr. on 9 May, 2008
Equivalent citations: 3(2008)CPJ96(NC)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that the complainant had purchased carrot seeds weighing 25 kg9. from M/s. Daga Seeds who was a dealer of M/s. India Seed House on 20.7.2001 for Rs. 325 for which a receipt was issued, which is placed in the file and thereafter, purchased 2 kgs. carrot seeds of same quality on 8.8.2001 for Rs. 260. As the complainant found that the carrots were not formed he removed the plants along with the clay and showed it to the dealer, Daga Seeds. As there was no proper response and carrots did not grow underground, he approached the Deputy Director (Agriculture), Jaipur District, on whose directions the Assistant Director (Extension) inspected the field and prepared an inspection report stating that the carrots were not formed. Accordingly, the consumer filed a complaint against the dealer and the producer of the seeds, stating that he has lost Rs. 3,50,000 to Rs. 4,00,000.
2. The District Forum passed an order awarding Rs. 25,585 to be paid by the respondents--the dealer and producer with 9% interest from 27.2.2002 along with the cost of Rs. 1,000 to be paid within two months.
3. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, the producer M/s. India Seeds filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties observed that according to the Inspection Report dated 12.11.2001, it is clear that 90% plants did not yield carrot and the complainant also produced photographs in support of the case. Accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal with Rs. 3,000 as costs.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, M/s. India Seeds, the producer has filed this revision petition.
5. The first contention of the revision petitioner is that the District Forum passed an order against the petitioner without providing an opportunity to adduce evidence in their defence as their authorised representative Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate had wrongly informed the date of hearing as 27.9.2005 instead of 27.1.2005. Secondly, the Deputy Director (Agriculture) should not have entertained the complaint, as it is the job of the seed analyst/seed inspector to examine the seeds, in a specially equipped State seeds laboratory. Thirdly, the District Forum failed to follow the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, according to which, the District Forum should have got a sample of seeds from the consumer and sent it to the appropriate laboratory for testing, which was not done. Lastly, there was no privity of contract between the petitioner, who is a producer of the seeds and the complainant.
Findings:
6. Firstly, it is clear that no action has been initiated against the concerned Advocate of the petitioner or not being present before the District Forum by taking any one of the following steps:
(a) By filing a complaint against him before the Appropriate Bar Council; or
(b) By filing a complaint for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Secondly, it is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to let Apart some quantity of seeds for tenting en the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. On the other hand a senior officer of the Government had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective.
Thirdly, the complainant himself had shown the barren carrot plants along with clay with photographs to the dealer and dealer had not graciously accepted the defects in the seeds forcing the complainant to file a complaint. In this connection, we would like to quote an extract of one of our decisions which has a bearing on this case viz. EID Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gourishankar and Anr. in 2006 (2004) CPJ 0178 NCDRC as follow:
Since petitioner company is engaged in business of sunflower seed on large scale, it must be having the seed of the lot which was sold to respondent No. 1 was not substandard/defective, the petitioner could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory which it failed to do. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against respondent No. 1 on ground of his having not sent the sample of seed for testing to a laboratory.
Lastly, if there is any manufacturing defect in a vehicle or machinery or defects in production of seeds it is a settled law that the producer/manufacturer and dealer are jointly and severally responsible. Hence we do not want to further delve deep into this matter again. Though the complainant has claimed Rs. 4,00,000, the District Forum has awarded a small sum of Rs. 25,585 with 9% interest and a cost of Rs. 1,000, which has been confirmed by the State Commission along with costs of Rs. 3,000.
7. During hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dealer is blackmailing him. Per this allegation he has not filed any proof. However, if the dealer is blackmailing him nothing prevents him from cancelling his dealership or approaching the concerned authorities in this regard. Accordingly, we do not find any jurisdictional error of legal infirmity in the offers passed by the lower Fora. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.