Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 370.
Instituted on : 16.10.2014.
Decided on : 10.07.2017.
Karan Singh son of Sh. Molad @ Moldu, resident of village Nindana, Tehsil Meham, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Haryana Khad Beej Bhandar, Azad Market Meham, Distt. Rohtak.
- M/s Sipra Seeds, Kavi Road, Madlauda, Distt. Panipat.
- Aggarwal Pesticides Subji Mandi gate, Near Petrol Pump, G.T.Road, Karnal-132001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Anurag Malik, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 already exparte.
Opposite party No.2 in person.
Sh.Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite party No.3.
ORDER
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant had purchased 1 packet of paddy seeds “Phusa-6” of 10KG and 2 kg louse from another packet of same phusa-6 from opposite party no.1 against payment of Rs.1200/- as per receipt No.1830 dated 23.05.2014. It is averred that that seed was manufactured by opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.3 has purchased from opposite party no.2 and sold to opposite no.1. The said variety of seed was sowed for the purpose to enhance yield of the paddy as per direction written on bag of seeds and advised by the opposite parties. It is averred that on germination of plants, complainant was surprised to see different variety of plants in his fields, despite sufficient irrigation as well as application of fertilizer. It is averred that complainant brought this fact to the notice of opposite party No.1 & 2 but no heed was paid to his requests nor the opposite parties were ready to inspect the fields. It is averred that complainant has spent an amount of Rs.199237/- on 2.5 acres of land but the crop of the complainant was of three varieties and has no desired result as claimed by the opposite parties even after the lapse of considerable time. It is averred that on the request of complainant, a committee/team of 3 agriculture experts was formed and complainant requested the opposite parties to join the inspection team to assess the loss but they did not agree. It is averred that the above said inspection team inspected the field of complainant on 24.09.2014 and submitted his report dated 10.10.2014 which shows that there is mixing of different variety of seed upto 45-50% and the farmer has suffered heavy loss due to the defective seeds i.e. 55-60%. It is averred that the complainant is entitled for the compensation/damage to the tune of Rs.199000/- and opposite parties are liable to pay the same. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make payment of amount of Rs.199000/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written statement. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party as per demand of complainant and his choice sold the seeds. It is wrong that the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.200000/- as alleged. It is averred that after purchase of seeds the complainant never met with the answering opposite party nor there was any complaint in the seeds from any other customer. It is averred that answering opposite party is only retailer and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that complainant purchased the seed produced by the answering opposite party. It is averred that complainant has mentioned two verities namely 1121 and Pusa No.6 which are different and it is not clear whether he purchased the seed of 1121 or Pusa No.6. The claim of loss is wholly wrong and factually incorrect. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party as per demand of complainant and his choice sold the seeds. It is wrong that the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.200000/-. It is averred that after purchase of seeds the complainant never met with the answering opposite party nor there was any complaint in the seeds from any other customer. It is averred that answering opposite party is only retailer and he had sold the demanded seeds to complainant in sealed condition in which the same was supplied by distributor and manufacturer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
5. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
6. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/4 and has closed his evidence. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/3 and has closed his evidence. However opposite party no.1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.01.2017 of this Forum.
7. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
8. In the present case it is not disputed that as per bill Ex.C1 dated 23.05.2014 complainant had purchased 12 kg seeds of seeds Pusa 6 from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.1200/-. It is also not disputed that as per complaint made by the complainant Ex.C3, the alleged seed was defective, due to which three types of crop was grown. As per inspection report Ex.C4 of Agriculture Department, the seed purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1 and sown in his fields was not pure and was mixed with another type of seed which has caused loss to the complainant. As per report Ex.C5, there was loss of 35-40% to the complainant in his crop of 2½ acre of land. On the other hand, opposite party no.3 has placed on record copy of bill Ex.R3/1 whereby he had purchased the alleged seeds from opposite party No.2. However opposite parties have failed to prove the fact that complainant has not followed the proper instructions.
9. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is proved that as per inspection report Ex.C5, the complainant had suffered 35-40% loss of his peddy crops due to defective seeds sold by the opposite party No.1 and manufactured by opposite party no.2 and distributed by opposite party no.2 to opposite party no.1. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in II(2017)CPJ 549(NC) titled as Kantha Kantha Rao Vs. Y.Surya Narayana whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Scientist visited all the 19 fields and submitted in his report that 50% of the seeds were spurious-Petitioner herein did not file any application under Section 13(1)(C) to send seeds to an appropriate laboratory for testing-Onus passes on to petitioner to prove that seeds which were used, were not defective, which he had failed to do so-Deficiency proved-compensation awarded, as per IV(2015)CPJ54(NC) titled as National seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Malda @ Mal Krishan whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Once complainant has lodged his grievance with State Agriculture department and a committee of experts appointed by State authorities have upheld the version given by complainant, it can be safely presumed that complainant had sufficiently discharged his onus to prove that seeds in question were of defective quality-allegation of mixing of other verities of seeds has been confirmed in report of exprte committed and petitioner has not been able to controvert the same-Deficiency proved”, as per IV(2015)CPJ512(NC) titled as PHI Seeds Ltd. Anr. Vs. Sri Subramanya & anr. Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Agriculture-Defective seeds-Loss of crop-Mental agony and financial loss-Deficiency in service-unfair trade practice-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission held that merely because there is no expert evidence to speak about quality of seeds, it will not be fatal to claim-Directed to settle claim on basis of loss of yield @ 20 quintal per acre-Impugned order upheld”, as per II(2008)CPJ 165(NC) titled as Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kondabrolu Hasen Rao & Ors. Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Agriculture-Seeds-Defective growth of plants noticed-Report of Horticulture officer produced in support-No expert report produced to counter report of Horticulture officer-Quantum of compensation awarded by Forum, reasonable, upheld-Revision dismissed”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite parties have sold sub standard and defective quality of seeds to the complainant. Accordingly the complainant suffered loss of crop and consequently financial loss.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases it is observed that the yield of peddy has been expected 18 quintal per acre and as such crop of 2½ acres comes to 45 quintal. The rate of one quintal in 2014 was approximately Rs.1400/-. Hence the loss of total crop comes to Rs.1400/- x 45 = 63000/- and 40% of the same comes to Rs.25200/-. It is also observed that in one acre of land, cost of cultivation charges amounting to Rs.1600/-, cost of seeds as per bill Ex.C1 was Rs.1200/-, cost of fertilizer amounting to Rs.1500/- would be suffice to meet out the ends of justice. Accordingly the complainant suffered a total loss of Rs.25200/- on account of crop, Rs.4000/-(1600 x 2 ½ ) on account of cost of cultivation, Rs.1200/- as cost of seeds, Rs.5000/-(2000 x 2 ½) on account of fertilizer, Rs.5000/-(2000/- x 2 ½ ) on account of irrigation of land i.e. total Rs.40400/- in all.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that respondent no.2 manufacturer shall pay a sum of Rs.40400/-(Rupees forty thousand four hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 16.10.2014 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
12. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
13. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
10.07.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………….
Ved Pal, Member
