Haryana

Ambala

CC/387/2011

PREM CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANTAL BEEJ BHANDAR - Opp.Party(s)

VIPUL SINGH

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 387 of 2011

                                                          Date of Institution         : 07.12.2011

                                                          Date of decision   : 17.02.2017

 

          Prem Chand son of Shg. Harbans Lal, resident of Village malwadera, Tehsil      and District, Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

1. M/s Antal Beej Bhandar, Booth No. 171, New Anaj Mandi, Ambala City, through its authorized signatory.
2. Hi Gene Seeds ( India) Pvt. Ltd; plot No. 68, Jaya nagar, new Bowenpally Secundrabad – 500011 A.P. (India).  

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

Present:       Sh. Vipul Singh, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Charanjit Singh, counsel for OP No. 1.

                   Sh. Umesh Lakhanpal, counsel for OP No. 2.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased 03 bags Kiran Hybrid Paddy Seeds (lot No. HK-11-2514) for his 3 acres agriculture land, vide bill No. 6611 for a total sum of Rs. 1950/- i.e. Rs. 650/- per bag from the OP with assurance that the said paddy seeds will fully germinate and give a high yield of super fine paddy crop but the said paddy seeds was grown up with a mixture of three kinds. Further submitted that the complainant requested to OP No. 1 for visiting the spot but OP No. 1 never paid any heed and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to accede to the requests of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant submitted an application to the Deputy director Agriculture Department, Ambala to visit the spot and to inspect the said paddy seeds and the inspecting team of the Agriculture Department have visited the spot and inspected the said paddy seeds on 26.09.2011 and given detail report vide memo No. 5935 dated 19.10.2011 in which clearly shows that there is mixing in the said paddy seeds and percentage loss is 30-32%.  So, due to the mixing of the said paddy seeds, the complainant could not harvest the paddy crops one time and the same has not be harvested by the complainant three times and due to this reason the complainant could not sown the patato crops in time and there was delay of one month in sowing the patato crop and in this manner the complainant has to spend extra huge amount in harvesting the said paddy crop and the complainant could not get proper benefit of the said paddy crop, as there was very low quantity of the said paddy crop and the complainant could not get any benefit out this paddy crop. Due to the Poor germination of the said seeds the complainant suffered a huge loss of Rs. 30,000/- per acre in this way, the complainant suffered a huge total loss of Rs. 3 lac due to the deficiency in service and negligence on the party of the OP. Henc, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement submitting that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (C) of Consumer Protection Act, which provides analysis of the seeds from the competent laboratory to ascertain any defect in the seeds and the complainant has not complied with the directions as mentioned on the packet of the seeds sold to him by the answering OPs.  Further submitted that no notice was served to the answering OP about the inspection of the fields of the complainant by the Dy. Director Agriculture, Ambala.

                   Counsel for OP No. 2 submitted that the complainant is not comes with the ambit of definition of a consumer as provided under Section 2 of CP Act, as the complainant has shown the said crops for commercial purpose not for his personal use and consumption as admitted by him in the whole body of the complainant.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW/1 along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-8 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops has also tendered affidavit as Annexure RW1-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-3 and close his evidence. The evidence of OP No. 2 was closed by Court Order v.o.d. 18.12.2014.

4.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased 3 bag Kiran hybrid Paddy Seeds from OP No. 1 (lot No.HK-11-25 14) and each bag contained 3 kg seed for sowing in his field vide bill dated 18.05.2011 as per Annexure C-1. It is also admitted fact that OP No. 2 is a manufacture of the seeds. Complainant has to prove the factum that whether the complainant has sown the seed in three acres or not. In the regard, the complainant has placed on record copy of Kishan Pass book pertaining to the land which is owned by father of the complainant Annexure C-5 coupled with Annexure C-6. We can easily presumed that the complainant is cultivating the land of his father being a son. Above said evidence has not been rebutted by the Ops. From the perusal of Report of Agriculture Department i.e. Annexure C-2 forwarding letter and Annexure C-3 which reveals that the complainant has sown the three acre land. The complainant categorically mentioned that after sowing the paddy crops, the complainant planted the said paddy in the three acre land but said paddy seeds was grown up with a three kinds, upon which the complainant approached to the OP No. 1 requested to visit the spot and see the loss sustained by the complainant due to supply of mix-paddy seeds but OP No. 1 did not visited the spot. Ultimately, the complainant visited to the office of Deputy Agriculture Department, Ambala.

After visiting the spot by the Member of the agriculture Department and given the report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-2)  as under:

                   “Two types of paddy plantation are present in the field with matured long and mature short. Respectively resulted due to seed mixing percentage loss in the range of 30% -32%”.

5                 Counsel for complaint further argued that due to supplying of inferior seeds, complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per acre for supplying the poor quality paddy seeds to the complainant. Counsel for complaintn relied upon the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled M/s National Seeds Corporation ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. AIR 1160 SC “wherein it is held that Section 13-Procedure for trial of complaint- complainant by farmer/growers of seeds supplied by appellants resulting in less field –sample seeds not available with complainants as all seeds purchased were sown-Appellant also not providing sample of seeds sold for analysis-Consumer Forum appointing agriculture experts to ascertain status and cause of failure of crop-Compensation awarded to complainants on basis of report of expert-Procedure adopted by Forum cannot be said to be contrary to Section 13(1) (C)-Order of Forum not liable to be set aside as specious ground that procedure prescribed under Section 13 (1) © had not been followed and the Hon’ble National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Circuit Bench at Pune, Maharashtra) in case titled Prathan Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Sayd Amir & Anr. 120 (NC) (Oct.) 2008 wherein held that “Section 2(1)(f), 14(I)(d)- Agriculture –Seeds defective-Inspection carried out by Inquiry- Committee- Vast Variance in characteristics of plaints found – complaint allowed by Forum compensation granted - order upheld in appeal-Hence revision- Procedure prescribed under Seeds Act followed –Necessary aside on contention that seeds not sent for testing- Orders of lower for a upheld”.

6.                On the other, counsel for appearing OP NO. 1 has argued that there was no deficiency in seeds and they have sold the seeds to the complainant as received from OP NO. 2 in a sealed packet. But the complainant has not sown them as per instructions of the OP company and the report Annexure C-3 has been obtained by complainant in collusion with Agriculture Department. Counsel for OP No. 1 further stressed his arguments on the ground that the report of DDA has not been carried out in the presence of any person of OP.                   

7                 After hearing counsel for the parties, it is proved on the file that the complainant has purchased the seeds from OP No. 1 and it is also proved on the file the Committee of the Agriculture Department has given the specify finding that Two types of paddy plantation are present in the field with matured long and mature short respectively. Resulted due to seed mixing percentage loss in the range of 30% -32%”.  So, report of the inspection committee consisting of four officers cannot be brushed aside on the contention that seeds has not sent for testing and report has been obtained at the back of the OPs. As such both parties are responsible for selling poor/missed quality seeds to the complainant whereby he has suffered huge loss. Hence, we conclude that OP No. 1 had sold defective seeds to the complainant which was manufactured by OP No. 2.

8                 Now coming to the point of compensation, the complainant has claimed that he suffered a huge loss of Rs. 30,000/- per acre. As per the report of Agriculture Department reveals that there has been loss of 30-32% yield to the complainant. However, taking the average crops, we presume that the complainant must have took at least 25 quintal paddy in one acre and value of which may not less than Rs. 1110/- per quintal as per prevailing rate of the Govt. in the year of 2011 of hybrid paddy of such quality. As Such, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs. 8325/- per acre, and thus value of 3 acres comes to Rs. 24,975/-. As such we hold that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation to the complainant alongwith cost.

9.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      The OPs are directed to pay a sum of         Rs.24,975/- to the complainant alongwith      interest at the rate of 9% per annum form the    date of complaint till its realization. If the           compliance of the order is made by OP No.1       then OP No. 1 may recover the said      amount from OP No. 2 as manufacturing      defect in the seeds solely attributed to OP           No. 2.

(ii)     Also to deposited Rs. 3000/- as costs.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on :17.02.2017                       

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                             (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                  Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member