Haryana

StateCommission

A/733/2015

SUNGRO SEEDS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIJENDER - Opp.Party(s)

SUMEET GOEL

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      733 of 2015

Date of Institution:      07.09.2015

Date of Decision :      18.11.2015

 

M/s Sungro Seeds Limited, Plot No.1, Manish Chambers, 2^nd Floor, B.N. Block, Local Shopping Centre, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 through its authorized person.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Bijender s/o Sh. Om Parkash, Resident of Village Safiabad, Tehsil and District Sonipat, Haryana.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      M/s Suresh Khad Bhandar, Akbarpur Barota, District Sonipat through its Proprietor.

Respondent/Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Krishan Vohra, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 performa party.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred by M/s Sungro Seeds Limited-Opposite Party No.2, against the order dated July 31^st, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of loss of cabbage crop due to supply of defective seed.

2.      Bijender-complainant-respondent No.1, purchased 21 packets of Cabbage seed from M/s Suresh Khad Bhandar-Opposite Party No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) on August 26^th, 2014 by paying Rs.3360/- vide receipt Exhibit C-1. The seed was manufactured by opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 was its authorized dealer.   

3.      The complainant sowed the seed in his land, however the germination of the seed was not proper. He complained to The District Horticulture Officer, Sonipat. A team of agriculture experts was deputed to inspect the fields of the complaint. Accordingly, a team of agriculture experts which consisted of Assistant Project Officer, Sonipat and Horticulture Development Officer, Rai, inspected complainant’s fields and submitted report Exhibit C-4.  The complainant approached the opposite parties to compensate him on account of loss of his crop but they did not pay any compensation on the ground that the seed supplied was tested and approved by the Seed Certification Agency. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

4.      The opposite party No.2/appellant contested complaint by filing reply denying the averments made by the complainant.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint and directed the opposite parties as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order. 

6.      The question for consideration before this Commission is whether the seed supplied to the complainant was pure or not?

7.      While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1 placed reliance upon two reports, that is, Annexure A-1 issued by Division of Seed Science Technology ICAR-IARI, New Delhi and Annexure A-2 issued from Sungro Seeds Ltd Quality Control Laboratory Test Report.

8.      Both the above said reports are of no help to the appellant for the simple reason that the report Annexure A-1 pertains to some different lot number and certainly must have been related to the seed which was prepared prior to that date. Similar is the situation of report Annexure A-2. The report Annexure A-2 prepared by the appellant is an evidence in their own favour and that too with respect to lot No.CRC690001 which was earlier stated to have been got tested from ICAR-IARI vide Annexure A-1, whereas in the case in hand, the seed was purchased on August 26^th, 2014 vide bill Exhibit C-1 and sown on September 4^th, 2014. The appellant did not make any effort to connect the seed purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 (dealer) from their bills/invoices that the seed sold by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant was of same lot as that of lot which was tested vide Annexure A-1 and A-2. Even otherwise, the seed which was tested in 2013, was certainly prepared/produced much earlier and same may have reduced its germination strength by time it was sold. No evidence was led that the report (Exhibit C-4) by the Committee of agriculture experts was in any way incorrect or not based on facts. The complainant has placed on the file photographs of the fields showing very poor germination. On the other hand, no evidence contrary to the complainant was produced by the opposite parties. Thus, it is abundantly established on the record that the less germination of complainant’s crop was due to supply of defective seeds by the opposite parties. The order passed by the District Forum does not require any interference.

9.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to th­e complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 18.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL