APPLICATION TO PROCEED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND TO RECOVER RS. 8,80,000/- AS EXPENSES AND DAMAGES.
1. The claimants filed a claim of Rs. 8,80,000/- against the defendant regarding supply of substandard and defective maize seeds.
2. The claimants are agriculturists by profession. They purchased maize seeds variety 8711 seven bags (07) from the defendant for price of Rs. 30450/- with assurance that the seeds would give better results. The claimants cultivated their land by using maize seeds purchased from the defendants but could not get the requisite results. The Federal Seeds and Certification Department verified that the seeds were defective and substandard. According to the claimants, they had to suffer financial loss to the tune of Rs. 8,80,000/-.
3. The defendant filed his written statement and refuted the allegations leveled by the claimants.
According to him, the claim was time barred, he was simply an agency holder and claimants had not purchased seeds from him but from Messers Muhammad Sharif Khan and Sons Commission Agent 81- Ghalla Mandi Okara, the claimants had no cause of action, the defendant was a wholesale dealer of multinational company i.e M/s Syngenta, Federal Seeds, Certification and Registration Department at Sahiwal and at Okara did not verify that the seeds were defective or substandard, the crop of the claimants might have suffered due to late sowing, inadequate fertilizer doses, untimely plant irrigation measures, uneven land and plant growth and poor management practices. The defendant being authorized dealer of the Company was enjoying a good reputation in the market and that relationship of consumer did not exist.
4. Before proceedings further in the matter, arguments advanced by both the learned counsel were heard at length. Both the parties reiterated their contentions taken in respective pleadings.
5. The Honourable High Court in Case titled Ghulam Nabi Awan Vs Gevernment of Pakistan 2003 MCD 90 Lahore was pleased to hold that the people who come to courts with non serious approach and without doing homework while endeavoring to point out impressive issues do not add any thing in positive sense for benefit of society, thus, they did not come with clean hands and deserve to be discourged. This references is quoted here for the reason that the claimants drafted their claim in a slip short manner without properly appreciating the facts of the case with reference to date etc. It can be observed with naked eyes after perusal of contents of claim that the claimant did not mention the date when they purchased maize seeds from the defendant or when the cause of action in their favour had arisen and other dates regarding sowing the land, damage to the crop observed by him, applying to seeds Certification and Regiistration Department for report and date when they contacted the defendant for redreessal of their grievances. All these facts show that the claimants did not do home work/desk work before filing the instant claim and due to uncertainty and vagueness. The same is liable to be dismissed.
6. According to the record furnished by the defendant, the claimants had purchased seeds on 12- 03-11 whereas legal notice served on 22-08-11. Admittedly, the maize crop is of 03 month. The claimants should have lodged a complaint after having seen poor production of crop, maximum till end of June 2011. But they remained mum till issuance of legal notice on 22-08-11. By that time the limitation to file claim had expired as the claim could be filed within 03 months from date of accrual of cause of action whereas, the claimants approached this court on 28-11-11. Thus the claim is barred by limitation.
7. The claimants had annexed with their claim a letter dated 11-07-11 issued by Government of Pakistan Federal Seeds Certification and Registration Department. The contents of this letter would show that the claimants had filed complaint before the said authority with grievances of poor maize crop. The Seed Department deputed Mr. Abdul Haie, Seeds Analyst FSC and RD, Sahiwal to inspect the site. He reported that out of 08 acres sowing land only 01 acre was standing in the field.
The rest of the crop was already disposed of as fodder. The condition of standing crop was poor in growth and cob formation. The size of cobs was very small with lesser number of grains. It was apparent from the said report that the concerned officer of the Seed Certification Department inspected the crop when the claimants had already harvested the standing crop consisting of 07 acres. He could observe/check standing crop over 01 acre only. Therefore, the report made by Abdul Haie vide letter dated 11-07-11 could not be given any significance holding out a benefit to the claimants. It was noticeable that letter dated 11-07-11 was a reply to the claimants and not a certificate. Under the law only certificate regarding any crop issued by Seeds Certification Department could be paid important. On the basis of letter dated 11-07-11, the defendant could not be held responsible for providing alleged poor and substandard seeds.
8. The claimants took the plea that they purchased the maize seeds from the defendant and in support of their contention they relied upon the photocopy of "party deal" showing sale to different buyers including claimants. It could not be ignored that the claimants had not produced any receipt regarding purchase of seeds from the defendant. The photocopy of "party deal" annexed with claim is not that important which could be relied upon. On the contrary, the defendant placed on record the receipt which show that the claimants had purchased seeds from M/s Muhammd Sharif Khan and sons. The said Muhammd Sharif appeared to have acted as dealer whereas defendant was an agency holder of Messers Syngenta. It therefore can be said that the claimants purchased seeds from dealer and not from agency dealer. Secondly, the claimants did not impleaded Muhammad Shari as party in the case from whom, in fact they purchased the seeds. It could not be denied that due to non impleading correct parties, claim cannot be dismissed and proper /necessary party may be arrayed on later stage but that would be futile exercise because if Muhammad Sharif and Sons is impleaded as party now, the claim against them would patently/definitely be barred by limitation.
9. In view of findings and observations recorded above, claim is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.