JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL) The complainants Kulwant Singh and Satnam Singh who are agriculturalists by profession, took agricultural land on lease in Village Jian, District Hoshiarpur paying a total sum of Rs.2,70,000/- to the land owners out of which, Rs.1,35,000/- per annum were paid to Jagdeep and Rs.1,35,000/- were paid to one Umrao Singh who owned the said agricultural land. The complainants also purchased 3 quintal of seeds for sowing pea crop in the above referred agricultural land. The seeds were purchased from New Bains Seeds Center, petitioner in RP No.1152 of 2018 and had been manufactured by National Seeds Corporation, petitioner in RP No.1072 of 2018. The seeds which were sold to the complainants and which they had sown in the land, did not yield pea crop in the expected quantity and part of the crop got damaged. They approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint impleading both, New Bains Seeds Center as well as National Seeds Corporation Ltd. as the OPs in the complaint. 2. The complaints were resisted by the petitioners namely New Bains Seeds Center as well as National Seeds Corporation Ltd. 3. The District Forum having dismissed the Consumer Complaint, the complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 26.09.2017, the State Commission allowed the appeal by directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.3 lacs to the complainants alongwith compensation quantified at Rs.40,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.20,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioners are before this Commission. 3. When these petitions came up for hearing on 18.04.2018, notice limited to the quantum of compensation was issued to the respondents/complainants by Bench No.1 of this Commission. I have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the parties only on the quantum of compensation. 4. It has come in the Consumer Complaint that the Complainants had paid Rs.2,70,000/- to the land owners for using their agricultural land for cultivation of peas crop. It is also alleged by them that they had spent Rs.95,000/- for making the land fit for cultivation of peas besides spending Rs.10,000/- on spray used on the crop. They also claim to have purchased 3 Quintals and 90 Kilograms of seeds for a price of Rs.97,500/-. 5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact, the complainants purchased 3 quintals 90 kg of seeds only for Rs.75,000/- as would be evident from the letter sent by BDO to the complainants, available on page 137/138 of the paper book, wherein it was clearly stated that as per the bill issued by the dealer, in the name of Satnam Singh, 3 quintals 90 k.g. of the seeds were purchased by him. The letter of the complainant dated 30.10.2015 available on page 136 of the paper book would show that the seeds were purchased at the price of Rs. 25,000/- per quintal. The cost of 3 quintal and 90 kg of seeds at the price of Rs. 25,000/- per quintal comes to Rs. 97,500/-. If the afore-said amount of Rs. 97,500/- spent on purchase of seeds is added to the amount of Rs 2,70,000/-, paid to the land owners for growing peas, to the amount of Rs 45,000/-, spent on making the land fit for cultivation and Rs 10,000/- spent on the spray used for crop the total would come to Rs. 4,22,500/-. 6. The State Commission noted that as per the report of experts marked as exhibit C-17 and 18 the complainant had suffered loss of more than 50% of the pea crop on account of mixture seeds having been sold to him. Since the loss of crop was only about 50%, the complainant is entitled to 50% of the aforesaid expenditure which comes to Rs. 2,11,250/-. 7. No evidence was led by the complainant to prove the prevailing price of the crop on the day the crop would be ready for sale in the market. He claimed compensation of Rs 2 lacs without disclosing the prevailing price of pea crop in the market on the date he would have been able to sell the crop. The State Commission has awarded a total amount of Rs 3,40,000/- to the complainant in addition to the cost of litigation to him. If it is assumed that the complainant would have made a profit of Rs. 4 lacs on selling the pea crop in the market he would be entitled to Rs.2 lakh as compensation his loss being to the extent of at least 50% of the crop. If the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is added to 50% of the cost of the complainant, the aggregate would come to much more than the total compensation awarded by the State Commission. Even if the value of 50% of the crop is taken at Rs. 1.5 lac, the total loss suffered by the complainant will be more than the award of the State Commission. Therefore, I find no justification for reducing the compensation awarded by the State Commission. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the failure of the complainant to give the market price of the crop on the date it would have been available for sale in the market no justification for enhancement of compensation is made out. For the reason stated hereinabove both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed maintaining the order passed by the state Commission. |
