Punjab

Sangrur

CC/451/2020

Hoshiar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hero Organic Hassanpur Chungi - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S.Dhindsa

05 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                           

                                                Complaint No.    451

                                                Instituted on:      03.11.2020

                                                Decided on:       05.03.2024

 

Hoshiar Singh son of Sh. Diya Singh, resident of Village Ratta Tibba Tehsil and District Fatehabad, Haryana, presently residing at Q 74 Type II SLIET Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

Hero Organic, Hassanpur Chungi to BSNL Telephone Exchange Colony Road, Near SD Convent School, Saharanpur District Saharanpur Uttar Pradesh through its Manager/Proprietor.

…Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :               Shri S.S. Dhindsa, Adv.

For OP                      :               Exparte.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                       Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:

 

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party  on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by purchasing 483 lemon trees against payment of Rs.1,20,750/- on 29.05.2017.  Further case of complainant is that the said trees/plants were planted in one acre land of the complainant at Village Ratta Tibba.  That as per the specifications and assurance of the opposite parties, the variety of the said lemon plants contains seeds. Moreover, the OPs also advertised and gave assurance to the complainant that after three years, the farmer will get produce of Rs.15,00,000/- per acre of every year. The grievance of the complainant is that 50 % trees have already been damaged and died due to poor quality of the plants within a year from their plantation and the complainant had to arrange 240 plants again from another nursery. Further it is averred that the surviving plants yield of fruit is seedless lemons now after three years from plantation.  The said variety of seedless lemon is very common and not fit for sale on good price. Moreover this variety of lemon trees is easily can grow from stem/trunk of the growing plants after putting into earth directly, there was no need to purchase on high cost of such like plants. As such, it is stated that the complainant has got heavy loss of about Rs.10,00,000/- because the variety, quality and quantity of yielding of the said plants is very poor. The complainant has approached to the OPs so many times. As such, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the OP, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay the loss amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that the summoning of the OP was got effected through the newspaper Punjab Kesari dated 4.5.2021, but none appeared for the OP nor OP put appearance, as such the OP was proceeded against exparte on 24.05.2021.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have  perused the complaint file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently that complainant availed the services of the OP by purchasing 483 lemon trees against payment of Rs.1,20,750/- on 29.05.2017.  Further the learned counsel has argued that the said trees/plants were planted in one acre land of the complainant at Village Ratta Tibba. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that as per the specifications and assurance of the opposite parties, the variety of the said lemon plants contains seeds. Moreover, the OPs also advertised and gave assurance to the complainant that after three years, the farmer will get produce of Rs.15,00,000/- per acre of every year. The grievance of the complainant is that 50% trees have already been damaged and died due to poor quality of the plants within a year from their plantation and the complainant had to arrange 240 plants again from another nursery. Further it is argued that the surviving plants yield of fruit is seedless lemons now after three years from plantation.  The said variety of seedless lemon is very common and not fit for sale on good price. As such, it is stated that the complainant has got heavy loss of about Rs.10,00,000/- because the variety, quality and quantity of yielding of the said plants is very poor, as such, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.             In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C-1 copy of the receipt dated 29.05.2017 of the Punjab National Bank which shows the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by the complainant to the opposite party. Further, the complainant placed on record copy of pamphlet, Ex.C-2 of the opposite party wherein it is mentioned that if 500 plants of lemon be planted then after 3 years Rs.15,00,000/- per year be earned. Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 are the copies of affidavits to support the version of the complainant. Ex.C-5 is the copy of legal notice served upon the OP, Ex.C-6 is the postal receipt. Complainant has placed on record Ex.C-7 copy of Girdawarri and Ex.C-8 copy of jamabandi of the land where the plants were planted by the complainant.

7.             During the proceedings of the complaint, the complainant also filed an application for direction to get the field expert report of defecting/disputed lemon plants planted in the field of the complainant. The application was allowed by this Commission. In view of the direction a field expert report of defected/disputed lemon trees/plants dated 14.11.2022 has been received by this Commission from the District Horticulture Officer, Fatehabad, wherein it has been mentioned that the lemon field of the complainant Hoshiar Singh was visited by the joint committee constituted by the DG Horticulture, Haryana comprising scientis from CCSHAU Hisar, District Horticulture Officer Fatehabad and Subject Matter Specialist from Centre of Excellent for Fruits, Mangiana, Sirsa on dated 11.11.2022. The farmer Hoshiar Singh told the joint committee that he purchased 483 plants @ Rs.250/- per plant from the Hero Organic Company and planted them in July, 2017 in one acre of land. Currently 83 plants were found and rest 400 plants were uprooted by the farmer as per his statement.  The committee has observed that 83 plants were present at site out of which 75 were found healthy and rest 8 plants dried due to fire. The eye estimated age of the plants was four and half years approximately with scattered fruiting among plants. The citrus variety identified by the committee was baramasi lemon (seedless).  After perusal of the whole record as well as expert report, we find that the plants supplied by the OP company were seedless whereas the complainant had sought to purchase the seed variety, which was not supplied and even the supplied plants were not proper and dried after plantation.  Further we may mention that the OP chose to remain exparte. The OP has not appeared to rebut the evidence of the complainant, as such, we will go with the version and evidence of the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he purchased 240 plants again from another nursery, as such, we are unable to go with this contention of the complainant that he ever purchased 240 plants from another nursery.  It is writ large on the file that complainant has suffered a loss due to the supply of wrong variety of plants and due to non cultivation of other crops in the field in question. Further complainant is a victim of misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, we are of the view that the OP is liable for the loss suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service/misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice.

8.             To support the contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Western Agri Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and others versus K. Muralidhar Reddy & Ors. RP No.1366-1379 of 2011, decided on 23.7.2015 (NC),  wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held deficiency in service in the case where complainants filed consumer complaint in question when they failed to realise expected yield of crop from seeds of Western 44 variety. They have been able to sufficiently discharge onus of proof by producing reports of Senior Agriculture Scientists who have brought out that Western 44 variety had not been tested for its adaptation in State of A.P. The OPs have not been able to produce any evidence to show that the such trials to adduce the adaptation were ever conducted in the State of A.P. Further, also the producer of seeds had not been able to prove that seeds were not defective. Held, alleged deficiency in service proved. 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OP to refund to the complainant the purchase amount of plants i.e. Rs.1,20,750/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum  from the date of its purchase i.e. 29.05.2017 till its realisation in full. Further the OP is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, misleading advertisement, unfair trade practice, mental torture, agony and inconvenience. We further direct OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

10.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.            This order be complied with within a period of 60 days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        March 5, 2024.