R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT

1. M/s. Avon Beej Company, has filed the present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), against the Order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 810/2014, whereby the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal filed by M/s. Avon Been Company, the Opposite Party No. 3, and had affirmed the order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) which had allowed the Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 (the Complainant).

2. Brief facts of the case, according to the Complaint, are that Anoop Singh (hereinafter referred to as Complainant) took on lease 6 acres of land from Madan Lal and Om Prakash at ₹1,20,000/- for the year 2009.He approached M/s. Ankit Agricultural Store (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No.1), for purchasing paddy seeds for sowing in the land.On the assurance given by Opposite Party No. 1 that Pusa 1121 paddy seeds, manufactured by M/s. Krishak Bharti (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No.2) and marketed by M/s. Avon Beej Company (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No.3), are best in quality and without adulteration, the Complainant purchased 3 bags (30 kg.) Pusa 1121 seeds, having lot No. BS 401-30-40-09, for a total sum of ₹1800/- vide bill No. 8047 dated 18.05.2009 from Opposite Party No.1. It was alleged that despite sowing the seeds at the right time by using scientific agricultural methods, urea, sulphur DAP Zinc and water as per the right proportion, only 60% crop was yielded and the remaining crop was destroyed due to poor quality of seeds. It was alleged that had the seeds been of correct quality then he would have earned ₹3,00,000/- more from the crop.Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, Complainant filed Consumer Complaint against the Opposite Parties before the District Forum seeking a total compensation of ₹5,00,000/- (₹3,00,000/- for loss of crop, ₹80,000/- towards fertilizers, seeds and medicines and ₹1,00,000/- towards economic, mental and physical loss and ₹1,20,000/- towards the contract of the land).

3. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the Complaint before the District Forum. It was submitted that the seeds sold to the Complainant were not defective. It was also submitted that as per recommendations of the Agricultural Department 8 Kg. seeds were required to be sown in 1 acre whereas the Complainant had sown only 5 kg. seeds per acre.It was further submitted that no other complaint was ever received from the other customers.The loss suffered by the Complainant is due to his improper management and not on account of poor quality of seed and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. Despite service of notice by publication, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 did not appear before the District Forum and they were proceeded Ex-parte. The District Forum while considering the matter had directed the Deputy Director Agriculture, Bhiwani to inspect the paddy crop of the Complainant and to submit a report.

4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1, perusing the report of Dr. P.S. Sabharwal, Deputy Director Agriculture Department, Bhiwani, Dr. Man Singh, Senior Scientist, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bhiwani and Dr. Mahender Singh Chahal, Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Bhiwani, the District Forum, vide order dated 15.07.2014 had allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 to pay ₹1,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for the loss of fields as well as harassment etc. and ₹2,200/- towards cost of litigation.

5. Aggrieved by the Order, dated 15.07.2014 passed by the District Forum, Avon Beej Bhandar, Opposite Party No.3 preferred an Appeal before the State Commission.

6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Appellant and perusal of material on record, the State Commission, vide order dated 13.11.2014 had dismissed the Appeal by observing as under:-

   “5.        The District Forum directed the Deputy Director Agriculture, Bhiwani to inspect the paddy crop of the Complainant and to submit report.  Accordingly, a team of agriculture experts consisting of Dr. P.S. Sabharwal, Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bhiwani, Dr. Man Singh Noonia, Senior Scientist, krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bhiwani and Dr. Mahender Singh Chahal, Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Bhiwani,  inspected the crop on 06.11.2009 and submitted its report, wherein it was observed that 31% plants were of ‘off-type’ due to which the Complainant suffered 29% loss of paddy crop.  Off-type means any seeds or plant not a part of the same variety and may include, seeds or plants of other varieties.  So, it is established that seed was not pure.  The report submitted by a team of agriculture experts cannot be discarded.

    

   6.         In view of above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. 

    

   7.         The Appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.”

    

7. Aggrieved by the Order, dated 13.11.2014 passed by the State Commission, Avon Beej Company, Opposite Party No.3 has filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

8. The Respondent No. 2 & 3 have been proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 05.04.2019.

9. We have heard the learned Counsels for the Petitioner (the Opposite Party No.3) and Respondent No. 1 (the Complainant), perused the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission, the Complaint, the Written Statement and also other documents on record.

10. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner (Opposite Party No.3) submitted that the Petitioner is only doing the marketing of the seeds manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2.The Complainant has purchased only 30 kg. paddy seeds instead of 48 kg. paddy seeds as recommended by Agricultural Department, therefore, it can be presumed that the Complainant had used other quality of seeds to make up the deficiency. The team of Agricultural Experts, appointed by the District Forum, surveyed the crop of the Complainant in the absence of Opposite Parties.The Team nowhere mentioned in its report that the seeds were defective.If the seeds were defective then there would be no germination of any type of plant including off type. There is no complaint regarding the quality of P-1121 seeds purchased by other customers. It was also submitted that the publication of summons under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was done against the Petitioner in newspaper, namely, “the Tribune” but the said newspaper is not in circulation in the locality where the Petitioner resides, therefore, provisions of Order V Rule 20 were not duly complied. He had been deprived of the opportunity of being heard by the District Forum.It was further submitted that if the Complaint of the Complainant was correct then he had suffered a loss of ₹29,000/- only and ₹1 lakh has been awarded by the fora below which is unjust.It was prayed that the Orders passed by the Fora below should be set aside and the Complaint should be dismissed.

11. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Kumar Vishishtha, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Complainant, supports the Orders passed by the Fora below as according to him, the Fora below have passed well-reasoned Orders which are based on a correct and rightful appreciation of evidence and material on record and do not call for any interference.

    12.     We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. From the material on record, we find that the District Forum has noted in its Order dated 15.07.2014 that notice was served upon Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 through publication but none has appeared on behalf of them. Hence, they were proceeded Ex-parte by the order dated 21.01.2014.  Before the District Forum, the Petitioner was arrayed as Opposite Party No.3 in the Complaint.  Petitioner had preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. From the impugned order, we find that no such plea regarding non-compliance of the provisions of Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was raised before the State Commission. Before us in the Revision Petition, even though a Ground has been taken that the provisions of Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 have not been duly complied with but there is no such averment made by the Petitioner nor any affidavit/certificate of the learned Counsel, Mr. Nitin Grover, who had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant before the State Commission, has been filed to the effect that he had argued this point in the State Commission but it has not been considered by it.  In our considered opinion, if such a plea has been raised before the State Commission and the State Commission has not dealt with it, the Petitioner ought to have specifically raised this point along with certificate of its counsel who had appeared and argued the case before the State Commission. Thus, we cannot permit the Petitioner, at this stage to raise this plea.  

    13.     So far as the merit of the case is concerned, we find that the State Commission has referred to the report of the Agriculture Experts consisting of Dr. P.S. Sabharwal, Deputy Director Agriculture, Bhiwani, Dr. Man Singh Noonia, Senior Scientist, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bhiwani and Dr. Mahender Singh Chahal, Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Bhiwani wherein it has been found that 31% plants were of óff-type’’ due to which the Complainant suffered 29% loss of paddy crop and Off-type means any seed or plant not a part of the same variety and may include, seeds or plants of other varieties.  Further, it is established that the seeds were not pure.  The report submitted by the team of Agriculture Experts was not discarded.  We have already reproduced paragraph 5 of the impugned order passed by the State Commission dealing with the report of the Agriculture Experts.

    14.     We are of the considered view that the report given by the Agriculture Experts is based on spot-inspection and taking into account the entire material and documents produced by the Complainant and has rightly been relied upon by the Fora below.  The Order passed by the State Commission, therefore, does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and is based on proper appreciation of evidence and material on record. It does not call for any interference in exercise of our Revisional Jurisdiction u/s 21(b) of the Act. The view taken by us is in conformity with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269.

    15.     In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and it is hereby dismissed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.