State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yash Pal Sharma vs M/S. Ankur Seeds & Anr. on 23 September, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.210/2014
Date of Presentation: 18.06.2014
Date of Decision: 23.09.2014
..................................................................................
Yash Pal Sharma, son of Shri Bhupender Dutt,
Resident of Village & Post Office Mangarh,
Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P., &
Also residing at Village & Post Office Shamti,
Tehsil & District Solan, H.P.
......... Appellant.
Versus
(1) M/s. Ankur Seeds,
Office: - 134, Indira Market,
Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110 007,
Works: - Plot No.209, Phase-II,
HSIIDC Industrial Estate,
Kundli, Sonipat (Haryana),
Through its Authorized Signatory.
(2) M/s. Deepanjali Seeds & Pesticides,
Subathu Road, Near Congress Bhawan, Solan,
Tehsil & District Solan, H.P.,
Through its Proprietor-cum-Authorised Signatory.
......... Respondents.
.........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.
..........................................................................................
1
Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Yash Pal Sharma Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds & Anr. (F.A. No.210/2014)
____________________________________________________________________________
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, with the observation that the appellant did not get the allegedly defective seeds analyzed from any laboratory and, therefore, it could not be said that failure of peas crop was due to alleged defectiveness of the seeds purchased from respondent No.2.
2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that he had purchased seeds of peas, worth `3,500/- from respondent No.2, a dealer/distributor of seeds, produced/processed/packaged by respondent No.1. It was alleged that seeds were sown by the appellant in his fields during the season of 2011 and a sum of `72,000/- was spent on fertilizer, pesticides and wages of labourers. It was also stated that crop failed, because of which the appellant suffered loss to the tune of `2.5 lacs. So, he sought a direction to the Page 2 of 5 Yash Pal Sharma Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds & Anr. (F.A. No.210/2014) ____________________________________________________________________________ respondents to pay a sum of `2.5 lacs, by way of compensation, besides seeking litigation expenses.
3. Complaint was contested by both the respondents. Respondent No.1 denied that respondent No.2 had sold the seeds produced/ packaged by it. Also, it was pleaded that appellant had not got the seeds analyzed from any laboratory to buttress his claim that the same were defective. Respondent No.2, however, did not deny having sold the seeds to the appellant. Respondent No.2 also admitted that seeds were produced/packaged by respondent No.1 and he was the dealer for the purpose of those seeds, having been appointed by respondent No.1.
4. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint, with the observation that the appellant did not get the seeds analyzed from any laboratory and that failure of crop could have been due to various other reasons, like inadequate or improper irrigation, non-use/misuse of fertilizers, pesticides etc.
5. Nobody appears for the respondents, though on the previous date, two separate Advocates Page 3 of 5 Yash Pal Sharma Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds & Anr. (F.A. No.210/2014) ____________________________________________________________________________ appeared and filed Memo. of Appearance for respondent No.1 & respondent No.2.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Seeds Corporation Limited versus M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 506, has held that majority of farmers in the country remain illiterate, throughout their lives and that normally they use the entire quantity of seeds purchased for the purpose of sowing and by the time, they discover that the crop has failed, nothing is available for testing in a laboratory.
8. In view of the aforesaid binding pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dismissal of complaint of the appellant, with the sole observation that appellant did not get the seeds analyzed, is not justifiable. Hence, the appeal is accepted, impugned order set aside and the complaint is remanded to the learned District Forum, with the direction to decide the same afresh, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and in the Page 4 of 5 Yash Pal Sharma Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds & Anr. (F.A. No.210/2014) ____________________________________________________________________________ light of aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, on 16.10.2014.
10. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member September 23, 2014.
*dinesh* Page 5 of 5