Haryana

Karnal

634/2011

Raj Singh S/o Setha Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Seeds Development Crop. Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A.S. Chauhan

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                               Complaint No.634 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt.: 7.10.2011

                                                                Date of decision:06.04.2016

 

Raj Singh son of Shri Setha Singh  resident of village Agondh district Karnal.

.                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

 

Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Karnal near Bus stand, Karnal.

                                                                   ………… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before            Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                     Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.A.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.Narender Sharma Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased 20 Kgs. of paddy  PR-114, lot No.October-10-07-02- for Rs.420/-  from the Opposite Party vide bill No.1275  dated 16.5.2011. He transplanted in 5/6 acres of land, with the said paddy seed but there was uneven ripening of the crop.On  26.09.2011, he moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal for inspection of his fields. A technical committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture,  visited his fields and observed that  due to uneven  ripening there might be 35% loss in the paddy yield.  He complained to the Opposite Party  regarding supply of low standard and duplicate seed, but the Opposite Party did not listen. In this way, he suffered loss of Rs.4,00,000/- and mental pain on account of supply of inferior quality and mixed variety seed by the Opposite Party, which amounted to deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

                   On merits, it  has been submitted that lot out of which the complainant purchased the seed was of 100 and that seed was sold to number of farmers in different districts, but there was no complaint from any other farmer. On the complaint of the complainant, his fields were inspected by the team of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation and during inspection condition of the crop was found to be normal, though some other variety in crop was found.  It has been admitted that technical team of agriculture department also inspected the fields of the complainant and found 35% of other variety plants. It has further been pleaded that the complainant did not follow prescribed norms, while sowing the seed. As per instructions/prescribed norms, while sowing the seed, the farmer was required to sow 8-10 kgs. Of seed per acre, whereas the complainant used 20 Kgms seed for 5-6 acres. Moreover, the  production of yield also depends upon various factors viz weather, quality of water and other necessary requirements to be followed by the farmers. As the condition of the crop of the complainant was normal, the complainant had not suffered any loss. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Setha Singh son of Spattar Singh Ex.C2  and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 have been tendered. ( (Documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 again wrongly numbered).

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party, affidavit of Shri Ram Kumar lamba Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP1/A to Ex.OP1/E have been tendered.

 

 5.                     For seeking clarification regarding report prepared by   inspection team of Agriculture Department and report prepared by inspection team of the Opposite Party, Sh.Naresh Kumar Dahiya, Assistant Seeds Production Officer, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation, Umri, Yamuna Nagar and Sh.S.P.Kapil, Quality Control Manager, Haryana Seed Development Corporation, Panchkula were also examined.

 

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

7.                The complainant had purchased 20Kgs of paddy seed variety PR-114 from the Opposite Party, vide bill No.1275 dated 16.5.2011 and from the said seed paddy was transplanted in 5/6 acres of land, but the paddy was not  growing properly. On  the request of  complainant, a team of officers constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal visited his fields and found 35% of other variety in the field. The Opposite Party has submitted that fields of the complainant were inspected by the team  of the  Haryana Seed Development Corporation  and condition of the crop was found to be normal.

 

8.                The complainant has produced the copy of the report Ex.C1 prepared by the  Inspection Committee of the Agriculture department after inspecting  his fields on 26.9.2011.The team/committee observed that there were 35% plants of the other variety. The Opposite Party has produced the copy of inspection report Ex.OP1/D prepared by the team of Haryana Seed Development Corporation on visiting the fields of the complainant on 26.9.2011.  According to the said report there were 15  % plants of other variety of P.R. group  in the crop of the complainant but, the complainant was not going to suffer any financial loss as the plants were ripening simultaneously.

 

9.                It is pertinent to note that in the report Ex.OP1/D it was specifically mentioned that condition of the crop in the fields of the complainant  was normal and he was not going to suffer any  financial loss as plants of both the verities were ripening simultaneously. The said report was signed by the complainant also, therefore, he cannot raise any dispute regarding the same. There is no evidence worth the name on record which may show that there were different timings for maturity of PR-114 seed purchased by the complainant and off variety  plants found by the inspecting team. The complainant has neither alleged nor led any evidence to show that there was any difference in the rate of the   sale of both the varieties. Under such circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that he suffered any financial loss on account of supplying mixed  variety seed by the Opposite Party. However, from the evidence on record, it is proved that in the paddy crop of the complainant off variety plants   were found. The expert committees  which inspected the fields of the complainant did not give any observation  that off variety plants in the fields of the complainant  were due to any negligence on his part. Even the Opposite Party has neither alleged nor led any evidence to prove any negligence on the part of the complainant in preparing the nursery  from  the seed purchased by him and transplanting the same in the fields. Under such facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the seed supplied by the Opposite Party of PR-114 variety was not pure, rather the same contained off variety seed also. The complainant who wanted to get crop of PR-114 variety, was bound to suffer mental pain and harassment on account of off variety seed found in the seed supplied to him by the Opposite Party. Consequently, he is entitled to get compensation from the Opposite Party.

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party to pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Party shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 06  04.2016.

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.A.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.Narender Sharma Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 06  04.2016.

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.