Haryana

Kurukshetra

185/2017

Tej Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HAryana Seeds - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

13 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.185 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 06.09.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:13.11.2018.

Tej Pal aged about 50 years, son of Sh. Barkha Ram, resident of Village Jhandheri, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Haryana Seeds Dev. Corpn. Limited, Office at Outside New Grain Market, Shahabad Markanda, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra through its Area Manager/Manager.
2. Haryana Seeds Dev. Corpn. Limited, Office at Umri, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra through its Area Manager/Manager.
3. Haryana Seeds Dev. Corpn. Limited, Registered and Head Office, Bays No.3-6, Sector-2, Panchkula-134112 through its Managing Diretor.
4. Company of Seeds CSR-30 in question to be disclosed by the respondents No.1 and 2. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. Atul Mittal, Advocate for the OPs.No.1 to 3.

 

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Tej Pal against Haryana Seeds Dev. Corpn. Ltd. and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased three bags of CSR-30 seeds for a sum of Rs.1950/- at the rate of Rs.650/- per bag on 23.05.2017 (Two bags) and on 03.06.2017 (One bag) from the Op No.1.  It is alleged that the said seeds was not genuine as the same did not grown-up.  The complainant moved an application to the Op No.2 regarding non-growing of seeds in question on 15.06.2017 but the Op No.2 did not give reply of the same.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra and the joint team of the Agriculture Department including Block Agriculture Officer, Shahabad and other officials visited the spot and submitted the report vide memo dt. 16.08.2017.  In the said report, it is mentioned that the seeds has not been grown-up and the lot was valid upto 16.07.2017, so, no sample was taken of the said lot.  It is further alleged that vide memo dated 31.07.2017, the Op No.2 has admitted the deficiency in service on the part of Ops and admitted that the refund of amount of Rs.1950/- is sought and on sanctioning of the same, the payment will be made to the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant went to Nariangarh District, Ambala from where the complainant purchased the sapling (paudh) of PR-13 and Varsha Gold of paddy for 5 acre land at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per acre for total amounting to Rs.35,000/-.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay Rs.1,14,950/- as loss suffered by him alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the seed crop depends upon agro climatic conditions, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients and effective use of fertilizers etc.  Besides proper germination of seed correct agricultural practices have to be followed.  The Ops always sell the seed which are duly certified by “STATE SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY” which is a State Govt. Agency.  The seeds are sold subject to quality analysis and only after testing from the notified (under the provisions of Seed Act and Seed Rules) State Govt. Seed Testing Laboratory.  Apart from the State Govt. Lab Testing, the quality is strictly maintained by the Corporation also.  Therefore, it cannot be said very simply that the seed in question was not a pure and healthy seed.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.Cw1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.          On the other hand, the counsel of Ops tendered into evidence documents Ex.r1 to Ex.R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.        

6.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             The complainant contended that he purchased three bags of CSR-30 seeds for a sum of Rs.1950/- at the rate of Rs.650/- per bag on 23.05.2017 (Two bags) and on 03.06.2017 (One bag) from the Op No.1.  The seed was not properly germinated and the complainant wrote a letter, Ex.C2 to the Ops and thereafter, he wrote a letter to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra regarding investigation of his paddy crop.  The committee constituted by Agriculture Department has given the report, which is Ex.C7 in which they admitted the facts that the seed was not properly germinated as prescribed and after that report, the Ops gave the reply of his application in which they admitted the facts and are ready to give the purchased amount to the complainant.  It is also contended by the counsel of complainant that after the damages of sapling (paudh), he has purchased the sapling (paudh) of PR-13 @ Rs.7,000/- per acre for total amounting to Rs.35,000/-.  So, there is gross deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops contended that the total bags which were purchased by the complainant are three bags, which is not sufficient for five acres of land.  The admission of refund of the purchased amount by the Ops department are admitted only in the interest of justice, however, the learned counsel contended that technically the seeds were not sufficient for five acres land.  So, he prayed for dismissal of complaint.  The counsel of Ops No.1 to 3 submitted a catena of authorities cited in 2006(2) CLT page 147 titled as Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and another (SC); 2004(2) CLT page 656 titled as Ganesh Ram and others Vs. Kisan Agro Sales and other (NC) and 1999(1) CPC page 366 titled as Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar (State Commission, Haryana).  

9.             On perusal of file, we have seen that it is an admission case of the Ops No.1 to 3 where the Ops No.1 to 3 admitted the claim of complainant that they are ready to refund the purchased amount to the complainant.  So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops No.1 to 3 to refund the purchased amount of Rs.1950/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges.  The authorities submitted by the counsel for Ops are not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt 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 said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:13.11.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.