RAKESH KUMAR S/O SHRI KISHORI LAL vs ADVANTA INDIA LTD. & ORS.

The challenge in this revision petition has been made by the petitioner/complainant to the impugned order dated 31.07.2014, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 164/2014, Rakesh Kumar vs. Advanta India Ltd. & Ors., vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una, dated 31.03.2014, partially allowing the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner, was upheld.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner/complainant Rakesh Kumar filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, alleging that he purchased 100kg of maize seeds PAC 745 from the respondent no. 1, Advanta India Ltd. through their dealer Avtar Singh of Thakur Seeds Store, Una at the rate of Rs. 180/- per kilogram and sowed the same in 120 canals of land. According to the complainant, the germination did not take place properly due to inferior quality of seeds and the said fact was brought to the notice of the OPs, who had the fields inspected by sending team of senior officers. As per the complainant, the officers of the Company promised with him that they shall provide free seeds for re-sowing and also give the expenses for the said re-sowing. However, they failed to give the cost of re-sowing to him, following which he filed the complaint in question, alleging that he had suffered a loss of Rs. 4,20,000/-, which should be paid to him. The consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum, vide their order dated 22.03.2012, directing the OPs to pay Rs. 18,000/- as costs of the seeds with interest @ 9% per annum alongwith compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs, payable by the OP-1, besides a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OPs challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission on the ground that they had been wrongly proceeded against ex-parte by the District Forum. The case was then remanded by the State Commission, vide their order dated 02.04.2013 for deciding the matter again. Vide their order dated 31.03.2014, the District Forum passed an order, directing the OP-1/respondent no. 1 to refund Rs. 18,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint and also to pay Rs. 12,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost. Being aggrieved against this order, the complainant challenged the same before the State Commission by way of an appeal, but the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During hearing, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that the complainant had 200 canals of land in total, out of which the seeds of the OPs had been sown in 120 canals only, whereas in the remaining 80 canals, the complainant had sowed seeds, purchased from some other company. There was problem in the growth of crop in the seeds supplied by the OPs in respect of 120 canals of land. The complainant had suffered huge loss amounting to Rs.

20 lakhs, as he got no crop from his fields that year. The consumer fora below had failed to make correct assessment about the loss suffered by the complainant and hence, the present petition needs to be allowed.

I have carefully examined the material placed on record, including the orders passed by the consumer fora below. In the consumer complaint itself, it had been stated by the complainant that he had sown the seeds purchased from the OPs in 120 canals of land, but because of the problem in the growth of crop, he brought the matter to the notice of the OPs which deputed a team of officers to inspect his fields. The OPs promised with him that the free seeds shall be provided to him alongwith the cost of re-sowing, but the company refused to give the cost of sowing. There is an affidavit filed by the complainant dated 22.02.2012, in which same facts had been stated, indicating specifically that technical experts of the company namely Neeraj Kumar, Somnath and Raman Kumar had visited his fields and found that seeds had not grown. Thereafter, the company gave seeds free of cost for re-sowing and also got the sowing done free, but later on, they refused to give him the cost of sowing. The State Commission have observed in their order that one of the witnesses of the complainant namely Joginder Lal stated in his affidavit that following the failure of the crop after first sowing, the land was ploughed again and new seeds were sown and they grew well. The State Commission concluded that the complainant had not suffered due to the failure of the crop. The District Forum in their order dated 31.03.2014, directed the OPs to refund the cost of the seeds i.e. Rs. 18,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. and also compensation of Rs. 12,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The said order has not been challenged by the OPs, although the complainant has admitted in his complaint and affidavit that fresh seeds were given by the OPs to him free of cost. Moreover, the complainant has not been able to justify by any evidence, how he suffered a loss of Rs. 4,20,000/-. In the grounds of revision petition, it is stated that he did not receive any crop on 120 canals of land, whereas from the material brought on record, it is clear that the crop was sown again and there was no problem with the fresh sowing.

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that there is no infirmity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below, which may merit interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the consumer fora below upheld, with no order as to costs.