Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. vs Prakash Kashinath Nanvare

THE present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 5.9.2012 in Appeal No. 744 of 2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ''State Commission''). The State Commission dismissed the Appeal. The Appeal was filed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, ''District Forum'') in Complaint No. 248/2007 dated 12.3.2009. Facts in brief, relevant to decide this revision are: that the complainant/respondent, Prakash Kashinath Nanvare purchased tissue culture banana plants from Shri Dhanya Kumar Dagadu Salvithal, the Petitioner/OP -3, and paid Rs. 21,150. The Petitioner -Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (OP -1) and Plant Tissue Culture Division (OP -2) together, grow those plantations.

THE complainant alleged that he had planted the plants in his agricultural land, used manures and pesticides; and took all the precautions, as per the advertisement given by the Petitioners/OPs, and provided water to the plants through drip irrigation. However, there was no proper growth of the plants and 90% of the plants died. Hence, he approached the District Agricultural Officer, at Solapur. A Committee, consisting of District Agricultural Development Officer, Campaign Officer of Zilla Parishad, Solapur and the representatives of Mahatma Phule Zilla Agricultural University and Mahabeej, visited the Complainant''s agricultural land. After the Inspection, the Committee concluded that the OP have not provided hardened tissue plants, hence, 90% of the plants died, and 10% living plants were not as per Standard of the tissue cultured plants. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before District Forum, Solapur. The District Forum held the OPs responsible for deficiency in service and directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 5,40,000 jointly and severally, Rs. 50,000 for manures, wages and cultivation costs, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from 10.9.2007 and to pay a sum of Rs. 21,150 being the cost of seeds and to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum the OP filed an Appeal before the State Commission, wherein the State Commission dismissed the appeal.

AGAINST the order of State Commission, the petitioners filed this revision. We have heard the Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the OPs argued that there is no territorial jurisdiction for the complainant; he relied upon the judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Sadhu & Anr., : II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC) : II (2005) SLT 569, Sonie Surgical v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,, IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) :, IX (2009) SLT 111 :, 2010 CTJ 2 (SC) (CP) and a case decided by this Commission in M/s. Nath Royal Ltd. v. Basavaraj Shivabasappa Betageri &Anr., in R. P. No. RP/2165/2007. But, the facts are different in this instant case. The Complainant purchased Tissue Cultures Banana Plants from OP -3, who was the authorised representative of the OPs1 and 2. The purchase order and supply was processed through him at Solapur. Hence, as per Section 11(2)(c) of the C. P. Act, the cause of action partly arose in Solapur.

THE rival contention of Counsel for OP was that, the complainant cultivated Banana Crop for commercial purpose. Hence, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction. In our view, India is a country of agriculturists, and the cultivated crop or produce will be for his and his family''s livelihood, through a commercial sale in the market. Thus, we cannot go by mere technical language of "Commercial Purpose". This view gains support from the Apex Court''s decision in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, : II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : (1995) 3 SCC 583. Therefore, we consider this as a Consumer Dispute having proper territorial jurisdiction and it is not for commercial purpose.

THE Counsel for the OPs argued that, the complainant had not produced any proof or evidence to show that plants supplied by them were defective or adulterated. He further contended that the output of the plants depend upon various environmental conditions i.e., soil, water, air temperature, sunlight, organic fertilizers, bio -fertilizers, water management, humidity, diseases, pest, use of pesticides and its proper timing, weeds, etc. The Complainant did not follow the proper methods and instructions given by the OP, which has caused improper yield, the land was having water holding capacity and the salinity of soil was too high. He contended that the report of District Level Committee is erroneous and without any scientific basis. Hence, no deficiency in service by OPs. We have perused the copy of salient features of the Akshay Bananas variety, wherein the OP claimed that the plantlet is of highest quality standards achieved by modern and advanced technology, it is a disease and pathogen free, high quality, which requires fewer pesticides. It is Quarantine friendly in case of viral or disease outbreak, also given a guarantee of uniform flowering and fruiting and assured of periodic visit by experienced staff and advice on technical know -how from the OP.

THE evidence on record shows that, the Committee consisting of District Agricultural Development Officer, Campaign Officer, Zilla Parishad, District Solapur and representatives of Mahatma Phule Zilla Agricultural University and Mahabeej, had visited agricultural land of the Complainant and after inspection, the Committee came to the conclusion that the OP had not provided hardened tissue plants, hence, 90% of the plants had died and the remaining 10% living plants were not up to the standard. The complainant produced the soil testing report obtained from the Soil Conservation Officer which has ruled out the highest salinity of complainant''s land.

LEARNED Counsel for OP contended that the Laboratory test was not performed to check the quality of the Banana plantation. It is pertinent to note that the Plantations and the seeds are totally different entities. The sample of seeds can be preserved for long time, but it is impossible to preserve plantlets for long time, because they are living things, growing fastly. It is impossible for a farmer to preserve tissue culture plantlets at its original status as at the time of supply. For preservation, proper tissue culture laboratory is necessary, thus it will be ridiculous if we expect it from a farmer. Therefore, we put more reliance upon, the detailed report made by the Representatives of the District level Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee which consists of Agricultural experts. The said report states that despite proper cultivation, irrigation and manure treatment, the banana plants were not properly hardened. The Counsel for OP did not produce cogent evidence about the salinity of soil, or any shortcomings occurred from the complainant. It is also to note that the OP had not produced any Propagation/Production inventory record of the batch of tissue cultured banana plantlets or those supplied to the complainant and similar group of farmers. We put more reliance on the report of Competent Committee appointed by the Government. Hence, the arguments advanced on behalf of OPs are bereft of merit. Therefore, on the basis of foregoing discussion, we endorse the concurrent view taken of by both the Fora below and dismiss this revision petition. The OP is directed to comply with the order within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise it will carry further interest of 9% p.a., till its realisation. No order as to costs.