Haryana

Sonipat

286/2013

DEVENDER S/O HARILAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. PUNJAB AGRICULTURE & SEED STORE,2. PUNJAB AGRICULTURE & SEED STORE ,3. UJJAWAL SEED PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ TYAGI

16 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.286 of 2013

                                Instituted on:08.07.2013

                                Date of order:03.04.2015

 

Devender son of Har Lal, resident of village Sisana, tehsil Kharkhoda, district Sonepat.

 

                                                ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.M/s Punjab Agriculture & Seed Store, kharkhoda, distt. Sonepat through its Prop.

2.M/s Punjab Agriculture & Seed Store, Shop no.12, Chander Shekhar Azad Market, near Bus Stand, Sonepat through its Prop.

3.M/s Ujjawal Seeds Pvt. Ltd., plot no.12, Govt. School road, Sonepat through its Manager.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Tyagi, Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte vide order 2.2.2015.

Sh. PK Bhagat, Adv. for respondent no.2 and 3.

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he purchased 5 kgs. Tinda seed at the rate of Rs.250/- per kg. from respondent no.1 on 22.3.2013  and has sown the same in the land which was taken by him on lease from one Karan Singh son of Risala.  When the crop became ready for harvesting, the complainant was shocked to see that all the tinda crop was found to be pucca and it cannot be sold in the market.    The respondent no.3 deputed its some employees  who checked the crop and told that the tinda seed was defective.   The Horticulture Development Officer, Kharkhoda and Assistant Planning Officer, Sonepat inspected the crop  and they submitted their report to Distt. Horticulture Officer in which they found that 80% of tinda crop was found pucca.  The complainant thereafter has requested to the respondents to compensate him to the tune of Rs.1 lac, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In the present case, only respondent no.2 and 3 have filed their joint written statement, whereas respondent no.1 appeared initially, but before filing the reply, he has been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 2.2.2015.

          The respondents no.2 and 3 have denied the fact that the complainant has purchased the seeds from respondent no.1 on 22.3.2013.  The seeds were alleged to be purchased by the complainant vide bill no.4608 dated 9.5.2013 and it is not at all possible that the crop was ready by 4.6.2013.   The respondent no.3 is a company of repute and sells 100 of kilos seeds every year to agriculturists, but no such complaints have ever been received regarding the defective quality of seeds.  Report dated 4.6.2013 does not mention that which field of the complainant was inspected by Horticulture Officer nor in this report, they have mentioned the killa number etc.  This report also does not show that the crop which was found pucca (Ripe) was because of defective seeds. The complainant never purchased any seeds from respondents no.2 and 3.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        Both the parties have been heard at length.  All the documents placed on record by both the parties have been perused carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to supply of sub-standard and inferior quality of seeds, the complainant has suffered a financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- besides unnecessary harassment and mental agony.

          On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 has denied that the complainant has purchased the seeds from respondent no.1 on 22.3.2013.  However, the seeds were alleged to be purchased by the complainant vide bill no.4608 dated 9.5.2013 and it is not at all possible that the crop was ready by 4.6.2013.   The respondent no.3 is a company of repute and sells 100 of kilos seeds every year to agriculturists, but no such complaints have ever been received regarding the defective quality of seeds.  Report dated 4.6.2013 does not mention that which field of the complainant was inspected by Horticulture Officer nor in this report, they have mentioned the killa number etc.  This report also does not show that the crop which was found pucca (Ripe) was because of defective seeds. The complainant never purchased any seeds from respondents no.2 and 3.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3.

          In the present case, on 18.3.2014, the respondent no.1 appeared and has submitted his reply and also mentioned in the reply that this reply may please be read as evidence and after he was proceeded against ex-parte.  In this reply, the respondent no.1 has mentioned that he has purchased the seed from respondent no.2.

          We have perused the inspection report prepared by  Horticulture Development Officer and there is no rebuttal to this document from the side of the respondents. Thus, it is difficult for the Forum to ignore the report of Agricultural Department and this report fully supports the case of the complainant.  The complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which in our view is on a very higher side.  In our view, Rs.25,000/- (Rs.twenty five thousands) would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondent no.2 and 3. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.2 and 3 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/-  i.e. Rs.12500/- each towards the loss of Tinda crop in lumpsum.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1 and 2.

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

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:03.04.2015