Haryana

StateCommission

RP/14/2019

PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

21 Feb 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision Petition No.14 of 2019

 Date of Institution:13.02.2019

  Date  of  Decision:21.02.2019

 

P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Babukhan Millennium Center, Raj Bhawan Road, Somaji Goda, Hyderabad-500082 through its Authorized Signatory, Sh. Pawan Chowdhary.

…..Revisionist

Versus

 

1. Balwinder Singh S/o Sh. Birsa Singh, R/o Village Mandwal, Tehsil  and District Kaithal.

 

2. Krishna Enterprises Safido Road, Assandh, District Karnal through its proprietor Satnam Singh.

….. Respondents

 

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

                   

Present:-    Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the revisionist.

 

                                                 ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

           

1.                Present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist-opposite party No.2 against the impugned order dated 23.01.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (in short ‘learned District Forum’), vide which the present revisionist-opposite party No.2 was directed to produce the seed Hybrid No.25-P-35 of paddy for laboratory analysis.

2.                The argument have been advanced by Sh. Satpal Dhamija, learned counsel for the revisionist. With his kind assistance the entire records of the revision petition had been properly perused and examined.

3.                Learned counsel for the revisionist-opposite party No.2 has vehemently argued that the without affording any opportunity to the opposite parties (in short ‘O.Ps’) including the present revisionist, to submit its response about the application for producing the seed Hybrid No.25-P-35 of paddy for laboratory analysis, learned District Forum has directed the present revisionist-O.P No.2 to produce the seed on the next date i.e. 12.02.2019. It was further argued that the above mentioned seed was being prepared, packed and sold on behalf of the present revisionist and requisite ingredients mentioned on the packet itself and on the packets, the date of packing, testing in the laboratory as well as the validity was mentioned. The validity for the hybrid rice seeds purchased by the complainant was for a period of six months. It was further argued that the present revisionist was not in a position to comply with the orders of learned District because it does not have the requisite samples, however, the present revisionist being the principal, in terms of seed rules/seed Act, 1968 has retained the seeds sample of various lots and is in a position to supply its own laboratory tests conducted which have the requisite validity. So, the impugned order dated 23.01.2019 may be set-aside.

4                 At the initial stage, Sh. Satpal Dhamija, learned counsel for the revisionist had argued the matter at length, while assailing the legal sustainability of the impugned order dated 23.01.2019, passed by learned District Forum, Karnal. It has been pointedly argued that after conclusion of the trial of the consumer complaint, when it was fixed for arguments, mischievously, one application was filed on behalf of the complainant, which is also on the record to issue appropriate directions to the present revisionist to produce the particular brand of the seed, which has been purchased by the complainant for laboratory analysis. As per the record and the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist, the complaint was instituted on 13.11.2017 and after filing written version, leading the evidence, complaint was to be decided on merits, but the impugned order dated 23.01.2019 has been passed by learned District Forum vide which directions have been issued to the present revisionist to produce the particular quality of seeds.

5.                As argued by learned counsel for the revisionist, the particular packets of the seeds is having all the details including the validity period. Once the valid period expired, there is no action for calling the present revisionist to produce the sample of the seeds which had been allegedly purchased by the complainant. At such belated stage, once the validity period had already expired, there is no occasion for issuing such directions to the manufacturer or the dealer to produce the sample of the seeds. Impugned order dated 23.01.2019, passed by learned District Forum, Karnal is without having the fact of legality including the fact that at such belated stage, no report of laboratory could be obtained and it is wisdom of learned District Forum that firstly record evidence on behalf of the parties and then to decide the complaint on merits.

6.                Hence, in the considered opinion of this Commission, the impugned order is silent about the reason that on what ground it was directed to produce the sample of seeds for laboratory analysis. Hence, the impugned order dated 23.01.2019 passed by learned District Forum, Karnal is not legally sustainable and suffers from illegality and as such, is hereby set-aside and the present revision petition stands allowed. Learned District Forum, Karnal is directed to hear the final arguments and then to decide the complaint on merits and will not press the present revisionist to produce the sample of seeds for the purpose of examination. The revision petition be consigned to the record room.

7.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Karnal on 29.03.2019 for further proceedings. 

 

 

 

February    21st, 2019           Manjula                                  Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                        Member                                  Judicial Member                                                                   Addl. Bench                           Addl. Bench              

           

R.K.