HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD vs NARINDER SINGH

THE first controversy revolves around the delay in filing the revision petition. The impugned order is dated 3.2.2012. The revision petition was filed in this Commission on 14.8.2012. The petitioner has explained that he received a certified copy of the said impugned order on 16.6.2012 through speed post and registered post from Narinder Singh, the complainant alongwith his letter dated 14.06.2012 wherein the request was made that as per the impugned order rendered by the State Commission, payment be made. Original postal envelope and bar code received by the petitioner sent by the complainant/respondent, have been placed on record. The envelope sent by speed post bears the date as 14.6.2012, which was received on 16.6.2012. Consequently, this revision petition was filed on 14.08.2012.

HOWEVER , a bare look on the memo of revision petition clearly goes to show that it was dictated and signed on 18.04.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a clerical and typographical mistake. The explanation of Registry of State Commission was called and extract of reply runs as follows: "I am directed to refer to your letter dated 15.09.2014 on the subject cited above and to submit that the work to certify the copies of the orders passed by the State Commission assigned to Superintendent -1 of the Copying Branch by the Hon''ble President of the State Commission. As per office report, the certified copy of order dated 03.02.2012 passed by the State Commission was prepared on 03.04.2012 and dispatched on 10.04.2012 vide dispatch No. 9351 -56 through ordinary post."

IT is thus clear that the petitioner has not come to the Commission with clean hands. The revision petition is conspicuously silent about the free copy. The real facts were kept under the hat. It is apparent that the petitioner became aware of the order on 18.04.2012. The bizarre conduct of the petitioner is difficult to fathom. The opportunity was given to file an application for condonation of delay but again it is stated that there is no delay. However, there appears to be delay of more than three months. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to condone the delay because the case of the petitioner on merits appears to be sound. We refrain from imposing heavy costs upon the petitioner and condone the delay, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/ -, which be paid to Shri Narinder Singh through demand draft within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise it will carry interest @10% p.a. till its realization.

NOW let us turn to the merits of this case. Shri Narinder Singh, complainant purchased 154 kg. Mushroom spawn on 27.11.2003 for a sum of Rs.6160/ - from opposite party No. 1/HAIC Research and Development Centre, Mashroom, Murthal, Sonepat. Due to sub -standard quality of spawn, no progress was seen in the Mushroom. Information was given to Dr. Ajay Yadav, Scientist, Incharge of OP No. 1. Dr. Ajay Yadav advised the complainant for cossing and also assured the complainant that he would get the result within 2 -3 days. On his advice, the complainant further purchased 90kg. Mushroom spawn on 18.12.2003 for a sum of Rs.3600/ - from opposite party No. 1. When the complainant opened the said bags he found that green and blue coloured spawn were mixed in the bag. The complainant immediately contacted the Scientist Incharge but the Scientist Incharge assured that there was nothing to worry and advised to separate the spawn showing blue and green colour and to throw them and sow the rest of the spawn to get best yields. Those spawns were sown in a second farm but no progress was seen.

ULTIMATELY , Dr. Ajay Yadav visited the complainant''s farm on 8.1.2004. He advised the complainant to treat the compost and the whole mushroom farm with different chemicals and than re -spawning would be done. At his instance, the complainant purchased 10 Kg. Mushroom spawn for a sum of Rs.400/ - but no Mushroom crop could be raised this time also. The complainant had to suffer financial losses and mental and physical harassment. Thereafter, he again requested Dr. Ajay Yadav to compensate him but Dr. Ajay Yadav misbehaved with the complainant by saying that "You are a liar, your may not go to anywhere, you will not get anything and Tum Mera Kuch nahi Bigad Saktey, Meri to Upper Tak Pohoonch Hai". Thereafter, the complainant approached the higher authorities and filed a complaint but the same did not bring the desired result.

HOWEVER , Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat directed the Krishi Vigyan Kendra Sonepat to inquire into the matter of the complainant and directed to submit the report. Dr. V. S. Pahil submitted the report to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, vide reference No. KVK/2004/341 dt. 6.7.2004. Dr. V. S. Pahil reported that the complainant had suffered huge financial losses in Mushroom growing during the year 2003 -2004. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat warned the authorities i.e. DDA, DHO and HAIC Agro R& D/OP No. 1 and 2, respectively, to be cautious and to inspect the crops of the farmers from time to time and directed them to compensate the complainant but the needful was not done. Consequently, the complaint was filed before the District Forum with the following prayers: "25. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that an amount of Rs.3,12,000/ - only may kindly be paid as loss of earning and Rs.1,71,200/ - only as financial losses in the process of sowing the mushroom spawn, Rs.2,50,000/ - only for mental agony, harassment and humiliation and the interest @18% per annum on the whole amount. Cost of the present complaint be also awarded together with any relief which the Hon;''ble Forum may deem fit be also granted to the complainant."

THE District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, first appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the complaint and passed the following order: "Accordingly, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. While accepting the complaint of the complainant it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has set up his mushroom farm by obtaining loan of Rs.80,000/ - from State Bank of Patiala, Ganaur and due to substandard quality of Mushroom seed he has suffered a loss of Rs.1,71,200/ -, the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss. Thus, under these circumstances, it is ordered that the opposite parties shall pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/ - to the complainant on account of loss of his mushroom crops, harassment and humiliation, within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order till payment.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The order rendered by the State Commission hinges upon the report given by Dr. V. S. Pahil, Sr. District Extension specialist (Mushroom), Krishi Vigyan Kendra (CCS, HAU), Sonepat. The report is dated 26.07.2004. Like the State Commission, we also reproduce the same in order to understand the things properly. "This is beyond doubt that the complainant has suffered huge financial losses in mushroom growing during 2003 -2004 season. The evidence of written statements of five different mushroom growers and verbal complaints of many other mushroom growers of Sonepat district about the quality of spawn supplied to them proved that the spawn supplied by HAIC Agro R and D Centre, Murthal to the complainant can be of inferior quality as I have said earlier also that many a times very good looking spawn from outer appearance only cannot be judged as good quality spawn because such spawn might have concealed spores of various disease causing fungi and bacteria etc. Secondly the lack of proper technical guidance due to undesired delay to visit the mushroom farm of the complainant by the Scientist Incharge, HAIC Agro R and D centre, Murthal for such a long period inspite of repeated request by the complainat has bene one of the major cause for complete failure of mushroom growing. Keeping the above facts in mind I am of the view that the complainant Mushroom grower must be compensated by HAIC Agro R and D Centre, Murtha. Admitting mistakes and providing justified compensation by HAIC Agro R and D Centre, Murthal to the affected mushroom grower Sh. Narender Singh son of Sh. Dharam Singh would be beneficial in long run for image building and also to maintain the credibility of the organization among the mushroom growers of the area.

THIS report does not mention that there was no progress of growing Mushroom due to defective seeds. It mentions that the spawn supplied by the opposite party to the complainant can be of inferior quality. The petitioner is not sure while giving his opinion. The but and ben stand taken by him does not lead the Commission anywhere. Secondly, the report submits that due to lack of proper technical guidance, it is difficult to fathom who is to give the technical guidance. This is not the part of the duty of the opposite party. The report of Dr. V. S. Pahil is just like a mercy report, which is not substantiated by report of any laboratory. Again the report submitted by Dr. V. S. Pahil was dismissed by the Managing Director, HAIC and Executive Director HAIC Agro R and D. Centre as per the affidavit tendered by Dr. Sanjay Singh and noted by the District Forum.

THE contention of the opposite party that the petitioner did not meet Dr. Ajay Yadav and did not explain his problem. Therefore, the problem remain unrebutted on record. It is also difficult to understand as to why did the complainant go on to purchase the defective Mushroom spawn during intervals. Did the complainant act like a prudent man?

IT is also clear that the complainant did not make any request to the Centre nor did he deposit the fee of Scientist in the sum of Rs.5,000/ - in the Centre. Had the needful been done, the clear picture would have emerged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the case titled as M/s Mahyco Vegetable Ltd. Vs. G. Sreenivasa Reddy and Ors., revision petitions No. 4280 of 2007, 4281 of 2007 and 4282 of 2007 wherein it was held "In R.P. No. 3525 of 2007, in which Mahyco Seeds was also the petitioner, this Commission had concluded as follows: "Initial burden to prove that the seeds were defective was on the complainants. Except for producing the report of the Asst. Director Agriculture reproduced above, repsondents did not lead any evidence to prove that the seeds supplied to them were defective. A perusal of the report would show that it nowhere states that the seeds supplied were defective. Variation in condition of the crops is not and cannot be attributed to the quality of the seeds but to some other factors. Inferior quality of seeds is not a factor for failure of the crops. The report of the Agriculture Officer does not mention that the seeds supplied were of inferior quality. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that there was any genetic impurity in the seeds supplied by the petitioner. Hon''ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn ltd. Vs. Sadhu and Anr., 2005 3 SCC 198as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Basappa Channappa Mooki and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2428/2008) has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The Apex court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant."

After considering the entirety of the case, we allow the application for condonation of delay, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/ - as costs, as stated above, which be paid to the complainant through demand draft within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. We accept the revision petition, set aside the order passed by the State Commission and restore the order of the district Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.