Haryana

Sonipat

CC/159/2015

Balga Nand S/o Tokh Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/s Suresh Khad Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Dahiya

06 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.     

 

                             Complaint No.159 of 2015

                             Instituted on:12.05.2015                                           Date of order:06.05.2016

 

Balga Nand son of Tokh Ram, resident of village Fatehpur, tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat.

..Complainant

 

                          Versus

 

1.Suresh Khad Bhandar, village Akbarpur Barota, distt. Sonepat through its Prop.

2.Shri Ram Fertilizer Chemical Kirti Mahal-19, Rajender Place, New Delhi through its Manager.

..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF        

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:    Sh. Anil Dahiya Advocate for complainant.

              Ms. Indu Kaushik, Adv.for respondent no.1.

              Sh. Jai Singh, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

 

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased 17 Kg seed make Shri Ram No.N-53 from respondent no.1 vide bill dated 29.10.2014 for Rs.22100/- and he has sowed the same in two acres of land by adopting the due procedure.  The crops were supposed to be ready in the last of 4/2015.  The flowers had grown on the top of plants but the size of onion is very small which was not supposed to be sell in the market.  The complainant has approached the respondents and also made a representation to Distt. Horticulture Officer who visited the site and has opined that N-53 onion seeds are meant for Kharif season whereas the respondent no.1 has sold the seed for Rabi season and there is negligence on the part of the respondent no.1.  It is further submitted that due to deficient services on the part of the respondents, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.4 lacs i.e. Rs.2 lacs as per acre.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 have appeared and they filed their separate reply.

          The respondent no.1 in his reply has submitted that on the request of the complainant, the respondent no.1 has arranged the opinion seed from M/s Punjab Agrl. & Seed Store and has sold 17 Kg seed make Shri Ram No.N-53 to the complainant vide bill dated 29.10.2014 for Rs.22,100/- which was properly packed and sealed.  The complainant has never made any complaint to the respondent no.1 in any manner.  The complainant while sowing the crop has not followed the due and proper procedure.  No noticed regarding the alleged visit of the Distt. Horticulture Officer was ever given to the respondent no.1 and the said officials are also not competent nor authorized to check the crop.  The said report is wrong and false.  One representative of seed agency and one scientists of KGK/KVK/ HAU are competent to check the standard/spurious and poor quality of seeds.  The complainant has supplied the complainant duly packed and sealed seeds. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant or respondent no.1 has never made any complaint to the respondent no.2 at any point of time.  The respondent no.2 never gave any assurance to the complainant in any manner.  No notice regarding the alleged visit of the Distt. Horticulture Officer was ever given to the respondent no.2 and the report, if any, prepared in the absence of the respondent no.2 is wrong and false.  The respondent no.2 used to sell the seeds after getting the same duly tested form the expert persons. The complainant has not suffered any financial loss at the hands of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the ld. Counsel for the  parties and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased 17 Kg seed make Shri Ram No.N-53 from respondent no.1 vide bill dated 29.10.2014 for Rs.22100/- and he has sowed the same in two acres by adopting the due procedure.  The crops were supposed to be ready in the last of 4/2015.  The flowers had grown on the top of plants but the size of onion is very small which was not supposed to be sell in the market.  The complainant has approached the respondents and also made a representation to Distt. Horticulture Officer who visited the site and has opined that N-53 onion seeds are meant for Kharif season whereas the respondent no.1 has sold the seed for Rabi season and there is negligence on the part of the respondent no.1.  It is further argued that due to deficient services on the part of the respondents, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.4 lacs i.e. Rs.2 lacs as per acre. 

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that on the request of the complainant, the respondent no.1 has arranged the opinion seed from M/s Punjab Agrl. & Seed Store and has sold 17 Kg seed make Shri Ram No.N-53 to the complainant vide bill dated 29.10.2014 for Rs.22,100/- which was properly packed and sealed.  The complainant has never made any complaint to the respondent no.1 in any manner.  The complainant while sowing the crop has not followed the due and proper procedure.  No noticed regarding the alleged visit of the Distt. Horticulture Officer was ever given to the respondent no.1 and the said officials are also not competent nor authorized to check the crop.  The said report is wrong and false.  One representative of seed agency and one scientists of KGK/KVK/ HAU are competent to check the standard/spurious and poor quality of seeds.  The complainant has supplied the complainant duly packed and sealed seeds. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has also submitted that the complainant or respondent no.1 has never made any complaint to the respondent no.2 at any point of time.  The respondent no.2 never gave any assurance to the complainant in any manner.  No notice regarding the alleged visit of the Distt. Horticulture Officer was ever given to the respondent no.2 and the report, if any, prepared in the absence of the respondent no.2 is wrong and false.  The respondent no.2 used to sell the seeds after getting the same duly tested form the expert persons. The complainant has not suffered any financial loss at the hands of the respondent no.2.

5.        After hearing ld. Counsel for the complainant, respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 and after going through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that the respondent no.2 is not deficient in his services in any manner since there is no dispute with regard to the quality of the seed.  So, we straightaway dismiss the present complaint qua respondent no.2.

          In the present case, there is dispute in between the complainant and respondent no.1 as  N-53 onion seeds are meant for Kharif season whereas the respondent no.1 has sold the seed for Rabi season and there is negligence on the part of the respondent no.1.

The respondent has purchased 20 kg. opinion seed on 28.10.2014 for Rs.25800/- from M/s Punjab Agrl. & Seed Store and has sold 17 Kg seed make Shri Ram No.N-53 to the complainant vide bill dated 29.10.2014 for Rs.22,100/- which was properly packed and sealed.

          This allegation of the complainant is supported by the report of Udhyan Vikas Adhikari, Sonepat and Rai dated 29.4.2015 and this report fully speaks about the cheating conducted by the respondent no.1 with the poor farmers.

          The complainant has submitted in the complaint that he has sown N-53 onion seed in his two acres of land by purchasing the said seed from the respondent no.1 worth Rs.22100/- vide bill dated 29.10.2014.  So, in our view, the respondent no.1 is definitely liable to indemnify the losses suffered by the complainant due to supply of N-53 onion seed at the wrong time to the complainant.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to pay Rs.80,000/- (Rs.eighty thousand) as loss suffered by the complainant and Rs.22100/- as cost of the onion seed to the complainant.  This amount is directed to be paid to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                             (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                                      DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 06.05.2016