YASH PAL Vs. DURGA SEED STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 1.7.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula whereby the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant has been dismissed on the ground that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.

(2.) Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant owns 16 acres agriculture land in Village Shahpur, Tehsil and District Panchkula. He had been growing papaya plants for the last many years. On 28.2.2003 he purchased Fl HYBRID MADHU papaya seeds contained in packets consisting 10 grams each packet against payment of Rs. 140 per packet from the opposite party No. 1. Acccording to the stand of the complainant sowing of 300 grams of seeds is sufficient to get the growth of 15,000 plants of papaya. In terms of the instructions printed on the packet he had prepared the field and had sown the seeds purchased. To his surprise there was growth of only 30% of the plants. Thereafter the complainant purchased one more kg. seeds from the opposite party No. 1 at the cost of Rs. 14,000 . But the opposite party No. 1 did not give any bill to him. Additional seeds were also sown in the field but they did not germinate as assured to him. In this manner the complainant had purchased excess quantity of seeds instead of 300 grams of seeds which were needed to get the growth of 15,000 plants of papaya. The plants of papaya bear fruit in the month of August but only 1,000 plants had borne fruit while other 14,000 plants did not bear fruits. He also made complaint to the officials of the Horticulture Department at Panchkula who after survey of the fields reported that sub-standard quality of the seeds had been sown by him. The other allegation is that he had spent Rs. 50,000 on plantation of the plants and spray of pesticides as required from time-to-time. Accordingly, on these premises the complaint invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to pay the cost of the seeds and expenses incurred on the germination of the plants of papaya, to pay the loss of income due to supply of defective sub-standard seeds of papaya to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs along with interest @ 18% till realisation; Rs. 50,000 on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed the complaint was resisted on the ground of non-maintainability of the complaint as the complainant had purchased seeds for commercial purposes and for that reason the complaint was barred under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986); that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as the seeds were purchased from Chandigarh and had sown the same in the territorial jurisdiction of District Panchkula as per the allegation of the complainant and the opposite party had no branch office or sale counter at Panchkula. On merits it was stated that one kg. of seeds of papaya Fl HYBRID MADHU was given to the complainant against the payment of Rs. 10,000. At the same time the stand of the complainant was denied to the extent that 300 gram seeds were sufficient for growing 15,000 papaya plants because the level of germination of the seeds in question is 70% including male and female plants, is subject to strict adherence to set of agriculture packages and practices including well-formed nursery beds, treatment of seed before sowing, proper timings and favourable weather conditions and for that reason it was stated that contention of the complainant in this regard was not only false, wishful, illogical and self-made estimates without having any practical or agricultural basis. It was further stated that the complainant might have purchased 300 grams of papaya seeds from other source as the papaya seeds were sold to the complainant by the opposite party No. 1 on 28.2.2004 and 6.3.2003. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. The opposite party No. 2 in its written statement resisted the complaint on the similar grounds stated in the written statement by the opposite party No. 2. The District Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record dismissed the complaint as per order dated 1.7.2004 noticed above. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.

(3.) While assailing the order dated 1.7.2004 of the District Forum, learned Counsel representing the appellant-complainant has stated that patent illegality in ignoring the factual position brought on record has been committed because the complainant had sown the seeds in District Panchkula and for that reason it has jurisdiction to try the complaint notwithstanding the fact that seeds were purchased from the opposite party No. 1 based at Chandigarh as dealer of the opposite party No. 2. Opposing the submission made it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent-opposite parties that no cause of action had arisen in District Panchkula and merely because the complainant after purchase of the seeds made at Chandigarh had chosen to plant the same in his own land in Village Shahpur, Tehsil and District Panchkula, would not confer any jurisdiction to the District Forum, Panchkula to entertain the complaint and thus supported the rejection of the complaint rightly on the ground of jurisdiction by the District Forum at Panchkula. In support of the stand taken reliance has been placed on case Hari Chand v. Bayer India Limited, 1999 3 CPJ 623 , wherein the facts were that insecticides were purchased from Muktsar which was found defective and the complainant being resident of Ferozepur had used the same at Ferozepur. On this ground it was held that the opposite party was not having head office or branch office in District Ferozepur and no cause of action had arisen in District Ferozepur, therefore, the District Forum, Ferozepur had no jurisdiction to try the complaint. In case Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. v. Nirmal Kumari Garg and Another, 1999 1 CPJ 693 shares were allotted to the complainant who belonged to Chandigarh while the registered office of the appellant-opposite party was at Chennai and for that reason it was held that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In Triyugi Narain Mishra v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Others, 2004 1 CPJ 71 (NC) the facts were that booking of the car was made at New Delhi where both the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 had their offices and as no part of cause of action arose within the State of Rajasthan because both the Citibank and Maruti Udyog Ltd. had no offices within the State of Rajasthan, therefore, it was rightly held by the State Commission, Rajasthan that it had no territorial jurisdiction. Apart from this ground, on merit as well, the Hon ble National Commission did not find any substance in the appeal and dismissed the same while confirming the order of the State Commission of Rajasthan.