Punjab

StateCommission

A/956/2016

Balvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Plantsman's Seeds - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar Sharma

16 May 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,    PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.956 of 2016

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 16.12.2016

                                                          Order Reserved on :15.05.2017    

                                                            Date of Decision   : 16.05.2017

 

 

1.      Balvir Singh age 53 years, son of Sh. Bakhtawar Singh,

2.      Mani Singh age 25 years, son of Sh. Balbir Singh

 

          Both residents of village Bikkon Pot Office Ghanuli, Tehsil and         District Ropar

 

 

                                                                Appellants/Complainants

                   Versus

 

M/s Plantsman's Seeds, Rajbaha Road, Patiala, 147001 (Punjab) through its Proprietor/Manager.

 

 

                                                               Respondent/Opposite party

 

First Appeal against order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Ropar.

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For appellant                : Sh.A.K. Sharma, Advocate

          For respondent            : Sh.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellants have directed this appeal against order dated 15.11.2016 of District Consumer Forum Ropar, disposing of the complaint holding that Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try it by giving the liberty to complainant to avail remedy before appropriate Forum for redressal of their grievance. The appellants of this appeal are the complainants in the original complaint before District Forum, Ropar and respondent of this appeal is the opposite party therein and they be referred as such, hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that complainant no.2, who is son of complainant no.1, cultivated his land bearing Khewat No. 53/58 min, khatuni no. 59, khasra no. 12//13/4(1-19) and 12//14/3(2-9) situated in village Bikkon, Tehsil and District Ropar. On 24.01.2013, complainant no.2 purchased seeds of flowers i.e. Marigold Gulzafri Orange-PM09072 and Marigold Gulzafri-Basanti-PM009143 for plantation in the land owned by complainant no.1. In 3 kanals 4 marlas of  land out of the  above said land, as advised by representative of OP, complainant no.2 had sown the said seeds and after saplings were ready for plantation after 20 days, he planted the same in the land, but no flowering appeared therein, because seeds supplied to complainant no.2 by OP were of inferior quality.  The complainants have suffered loss of the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- due to supply of substandard seeds by OP to them. They also served a legal notice dated 18.06.2013 to OPs, but of no use. The complainants have, thus, filed complaint directing the OP  to pay Rs.2 lac as damages on account of sale of inferior quality of seeds and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.

3.      Upon notice, OP filed written reply raising preliminary objections that  Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, it was averred that seeds were purchased on 24.01.2013 against proper bill for a sum of Rs.300/- from it. It was denied that representative of OP forced the complainants to purchase the seeds of any particular variety. Under the heading 'Notice to Buyers, it was clearly written that 'any claim for alleged defects should be presented to the company without delay. The amount of the seeds could only be refunded, provided the buyers returned the sealed packets immediately after its purchase. It was further pleaded that it gives no guarantee of crop performance. Any recommendation for use of the seeds does not constitutes a warranty either express or implied, as crop is subject to climate, environment, management and soil condition and that all disputes are subject to jurisdiction of court at Patiala only. It is clear that the complainants must have read and understood the above notice to buyers, regarding liability before opening the packet of the seeds. It was further pleaded that complainants had not taken due care for planting the seeds, as written in the booklet printed and published by Punjab Agriculture University. In the said booklet, it was clearly mentioned that February planting nursery was to be raised under polythene cover and sowing has to be done on first January, so that seedlings may get ready for transplantation by 15th February. In the instant case, the seeds were purchased on 24.01.2013 itself, thereafter same were sown after the prescribed time. No complaint has been received by OP qua the quality of seeds from the other buyers. It was denied that OP had sold inferior quality of seeds to the complainants. It was averred that complainants never approached the OP in this regard. Rest of the averments of the complainants were denied by OP and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-13, affidavit of Mani Singh Ex.C-14, affidavit of Rajinder Singh Ex.C-15, copy of document Ex.C-16, affidavit of Jagtar Singh Ex.C-17. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Salim Khan Ex.OP-1 along with copies of documents Ex.O-2 to Ex.OP-8. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ropar disposed of the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 15.11.2016. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ropar dated 15.11.2016.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      The District Forum held in its order that it has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and consequently disposed of the complaint of the complainants by giving liberty to them to avail of their remedy before appropriate Forum with requisite jurisdiction. The solitary contention of the counsel for appellants is that the District Forum Ropar has requisite jurisdiction to try the complaint and it wrongly held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The order of the District Forum under challenge in this appeal has been seriously assailed by counsel for the appellants. We have examined the complaint on the record. The gist of the matter is that complainants purchased the seeds for plantation of flower in their land against price. The seeds were sown in the land of the complainant in the area of Ropar. No flower appeared on the said saplings. Seeds were planted in the land of complainants at Ropar, but they bore no fruits due to inferior quality of seeds. The complainants alleged in complaint that seeds did not sprout, when grown in their land at Ropar, hence, cause of action partly arose at Ropar. The OPs contested this fact in the written reply. The affidavit of Mani Singh is also on the record that loss due to substandard quality of seeds ensued to complainants at Ropar. The complainants purchased the seeds from Patiala, vide Ex.C-3 on the record. Copy of Jamabandi Ex.C-6 has proved that  complainant owned land in District Ropar. Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986  deals with the jurisdiction of District Forum Section 11 of the CP Act is reproduced as under :-

11.    Jurisdiction of the District Forum - (1) Subject to the other   provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction           to entertain complaints, where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not           exceed rupees twenty lakhs).

2)      A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the     local limits of whose jurisdiction:-

a)      the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there         are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint,         actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a        branch office or) personally works for gain, or

b)      any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at         the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and         voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office), or personally works for gain, provided that in such case           either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the        opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or    have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case   may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

c)      the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

It is, thus, evident from perusal of this Section that Consumer Forum has jurisdiction within whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or partly arises. Herein, in this case, the loss occurred to the complainants at Ropar; where seeds were planted and bore no flowering or fruits due to their substandard quality. As held by National Commission in Singh Engineering Works versus S.K. Bluemental Works reported in 2007(1) CPJ 140 that cause of action arises in the place to the party, where the machinery was installed and defect came to the notice of the proprietor. While relying upon this authority, we hold that complainants got the knowledge of substandard quality of seeds; when they were planted in their land at Ropar. The cause of action accrued at the place, where the loss ensued of the purchased goods to the buyer as per this authority. While relying upon this authority of National Commission, we hold that cause of action also partly arose within the jurisdiction of Ropar, where the loss of purchased seeds came to the knowledge of the complainants. The order of the District Forum to the contrary is erroneous and same is reversed in this appeal.

7.      As a result of our above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellants and set aside the impugned order of the District Forum Ropar and remand the case to District Forum Ropar for its adjudication in accordance with law.

8.      The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before District Consumer Forum Ropar on 18.07.2017. Record of the District Forum Ropar be sent back forthwith, so as to reach there well before the date fixed and record of this Commission be consigned.

9.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 15.05.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

10.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                                              (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

May 16 , 2017                                                             

(ravi)