BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.
Complaint Case No.24/17.
Date of Instt: 30.01.2015.
Date of Decision:14.12.2018.
Charan Singh son of Madan Lal, resident of village Chaugama, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Aggarwal Seed Store, Near Punjab National Bank, Radaur Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor.
- Delta Agrigenetics Private Limited, Survey No.854 IDA, Medchal (Village and Mandal) R.R. District, Andra Pradesh through its Managing Director.
..………Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.
Ms. Neelam, Member.
Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.
Present: Sh. M.K.Sharma, Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Arora, Adv. for Op No.1.
Ms. Nisha Saini, Adv. for OP No.2.
ORDER
This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Charan Singh against M/s Aggarwal Seed Store & another, the opposite parties.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased two bags of Sudha Hybrid paddy seed for a sum of Rs.1,300/- from Op No.1 vide cash memo No.4180 dated 16.5.2015. At the time of purchase of above said seed, Op No.1 assured that this seed is of superior quality and shall give better yield of paddy. The complainant raised the paddy nursery using the above said seeds and this nursery was transplanted in 2 acres of land. It is further alleged that all the recommended package of practices was followed in raising nursery. All the hope of the complainant were dashed to the ground to see the condition of the crop as the complainant found the mixing in the seed as 50% plants of paddy were matured/ripened and ready for harvesting and 50% plants of paddy were immature. The complainant was surprised to see the same as OP No.1 had assured him that the seed shall give better yield of paddy than the yield of paddy which the complainant got previous year. The complainant reported the matter to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal and a technical committee was constituted, who visited the spot and inspected the field. The said committee after inspecting the spot observed that 50% off type/other varieties plants which were in grain formation/panicle formation stage. In this way, the complainant has suffered the loss to the extent of 50% per acre. The Ops have supplied poor quality of seeds and due to which the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of crop. The complainant approached the OPs and requested to compensate the complainant as they have suffered the loss due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, complainant claims Rs.50,000/- as loss of yield, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant.
3. Upon notice Ops appeared. Op No.1 contested the complaint and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction; that the alleged report has been prepared by the agriculture department is totally false and incorrect. At the time of alleged inspection, neither any notice was served nor the Ops were informed to reach the spot at the time of preparation of alleged inspection report by the team of Agriculture department. The patwari was not called to show the land where the fields of the complainant situated. As per letter dated 3.1.2002 bearing Memo No.52-70(SS) and letter dated 18.3.2009 bearing Memo No.744-62/TA(L) of Director Agriculture, Haryana the fields were to be inspected by a Committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of K.G.K./K.V.K; that the alleged report if any, has been obtained by the complainant in connivance with the concerned officials of the department and as such the same is not binding on the rights of answering Op. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the contents of complaints were denied to be wrong, preliminary objections were repeated and prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4. OP No.2 also contested the complaint by of filing separate written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has got no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; that as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of goods; that the Op will arrange the sample for re-testing and in the absence of laboratory test or analysis of Laboratory test or analysis no finding can be given about the standard of seed. As per letter dated 3.1.2002 bearing Memo No.52-70(SS) and letter dated 18.3.2009 bearing Memo No.744-62/TA(L) of Director Agriculture, Haryana the fields were to be inspected by a Committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of K.G.K./K.V.K; that the alleged report if any, has been obtained by the complainant in connivance with the concerned officials of the department and as such the same is not binding on the rights of answering Op. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the contents of complaints were denied to be wrong, preliminary objections were repeated and prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
5. In support of his case, the counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
6. On the other hand, the counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.1. The counsel of Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.2.
7. We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that he is agriculturist and he had purchased 2 bags of 3 Kg. each of Sudha (Hybrid Paddy) seed for a sum of Rs.1300/- from the Op No.1, copy of bill is Ex.C1. The Op No.1 had given assurance to the complainant that the seeds purchased by him shall give better yield of paddy. The complainant was shocked to see the condition of crop. He further contended that 50% paddy plants were matured/ripened and ready for harvesting and 50% plants of paddy were immature. The complainant was surprised to see the same. After that the complainant reported the matter to the office of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal. The office bearer of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal visited at the spot and inspected the fields of complainant and gave report, Ex.C3. The report of Agriculture Department shows that 50% of seeds were of different variety and it caused damage to the complainant. The report, Ex.C3 shows “Committee concluded that was 50% off type/other varieties plants which were in grain formation/panicle formation stage”. This loss was caused due to the defective seeds supplied by the Ops to the complainant. At the time of arguments, the complainant submitted two documents i.e. Mark-A and Mark-B. The counsel of complainant contended that the claim may kindly be given to the complainant. The counsel of complainant placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2014(3) CPJ page 196 titled as Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajpal & others (Haryana State Commission); 2014(2) CPJ page 23A titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. Vs. Ram Sawroop (Haryana State Commission); 2014(2) CPJ page 208 (HP State Commission) and 2014(2) CPJ page 703 titled as Dharam Pal & Sons Vs. Som Parkash (NC).
9. Both the learned counsel for the Ops contended that it is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the seeds from the Op No.1 but the complainant did not follow the instructions of company, so, there is variation of seeds in the fields of complainant. The counsel of Ops contended that there is no khasra girdawari or other document which could prove the ownership of complainant and there is no proof relating to the damage caused to the complainant due to that seed. It is also contended by counsel of Ops that there is no report of patwari regarding the ownership and damage to crops of complainant. The next point contended by counsel of Ops that no laboratory test was done by the complainant of that seed. The counsel of Ops also contended that Ex.R1 is laboratory test report which shows that the seed supplied to the complainant is superior, so, it is not the fault of Ops. The counsel of Ops also submitted a document Ex.RA which shows that 6 Kg. seed was required per acre land. But in the present case, the complainant has purchased only 6 Kg. seed for 2 acre land, so, it is insufficient seed for 2 acre land. So, the complaint may kindly be dismissed. The counsel of Ops contended that no notice was given by the Agriculture Department at the time of spot inspection of fields of complainant which is very necessary as per guidelines of State Govt. Counsel of Op No.1 has placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2007(1) CPC page 95 titled as Anand Singh Vs. Khurana Seed Store and another (Haryana State Commission); 2013(3) CPR page 386 titled as Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah & others (NC); 2010(2) CPC page 423 titled as Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. Velaga Narasimha Rao & others (NC) and 2007(2) CLT page 683 titled as Narender Kumar Vs. Arora Trading Company and others (Haryana State Commission). Counsel of Op No.2 has placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2013(2) CPJ page 617 titled as Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company & another (NC); 2015(1) CPJ page 530 titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop (NC); 2015(1) CPJ page 533 titled as NIA Vs. Yadram (NC) and 2011(3) CPJ page 210 titled as Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. Vs. M.B.Malipatli & another (NC).
10. From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, we find that it is admitted fact by the Ops that the seed was purchased by the complainant from the Op No.1. It is not the duty of complainant to give notice to company at the time of inspection of fields. We can rely upon the authority titled as Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajpal & others (supra), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana that “Agriculture-Purchase of seeds-Defects-Loss of crops-Deficiency in service-Compensation claimed-District Forum allowed complaint-Hence appeal-Contention, reports submitted by Deputy Director was not as per guidelines issued by Director of Agriculture-Not accepted-Constitution of inspection team as per letter of Director of Agriculture and not associating dealer of seeds was not the fault of farmers at all for which they should not be allowed to suffer”. Keeping in view the ratio applied by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in the said authority as-well-as facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops. The authorities submitted by the counsel of Ops are not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case. Thus, we assess the loss as Rs.15,600/- per acre, therefore, the total loss comes to Rs.31,200/- (Rs.15,600/-x2 acre).
11. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.31,200/- as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:14.12.2018.
(Neelam Kashyap)
President.
(Sunil Mohan Trikha), (Neelam)
Member Member.
