NAPIER AGRITECH Vs. RAM NATH RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, we proceed to dispose of 23 appeals, particulars whereof are given in the title hereof, as all of them are directed against similar orders, i.e. orders dated 10.08.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, passed separately in 23 complaints, in which the questions of law and facts raised, were identical.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 in 22 appeals and respondents No.1 and 2 in F.A. No.293/2011 filed separate complaints, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, against the present appellant, its Regional Manager, Manimajra, Chandigarh and Anil Kumar Sood, respondent No.2 in 22 appeals and respondent No.3 in F.A. No.293/2011, alleging that they had purchased hybrid tomato seeds branded as ''Honey 196 '' from respondent No.2 Anil Sood, who was a dealer of the appellant, on the assurance of said respondent Anil Kumar Sood that plants would grow upto a height of 5 -6 feet, there will be 100% germination, the size and shape of the fruit would be very attractive and yield would also be higher than other varieties. They alleged that the seeds were purchased by them in the beginning of the year, 2010 and sown in their land, the area of which was given by each of the complainants in their separate complaints. The detail of area and number of packets of seeds containing 10 grams seed each purchased, by each of the complainants is as follows: - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_23_HPCDRC0_2012.htm </FRM>

(3.) COMPLAINANTS alleged that they had sown the seeds as per recommendation, but the plants had stunted growth. They grew upto a height of 1.5 to 2.5 feet and the shape of fruit as also its size were so unattractive that it was impossible to market the same. They reported the matter to respondent No.2, the dealer of the present appellant in the beginning of June, 2010, who immediately lodged a police report against the appellant and its Regional Manager, Manimajra, Chandigarh and a case of cheating was registered against the appellant and its aforesaid Regional Manager. Complainants sought compensation for the loss sustained by them, on account of failure of their tomato crop, on account of alleged defective seeds.