Haryana

Kurukshetra

60/2017

Mukesh aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Luxmi Beej Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

Akhil Bhasin

03 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.60 of 2017.

Date of instt. 14.03.2017. 

                                                                      Date of Decision:03.12.2018.

Mukesh Aggarwal son of Bhrum Dutt, resident of village Gajlana, Sub Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

1. M/s Luxmi Beej Bhandar, Near Punjab National Bank, Raduar Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor.
2. Bayer Seeds Private Limited, First Floor, Delta Square, Sector-25, Gurugram through its Managing Director/Chairman.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Akhil Bhasin, Adv. for complainant.  

Ops ex parte.

           

ORDER

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Mukesh Aggarwal, against M/s Luxmi Beej Bhandar & another, the opposite parties.

2.             Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased 2 Kgs. of Mustard seed Kesri-5111 variety for a consideration of Rs.900/- from OP No.1 vide receipt dated 9.11.2016.  The complainant sown the said seed in his 8 Kanal 5 Marlas of land as per recommendation of Op No.1.  When the mustard crop of complainant in 8 Kanal 5 Marlas of land about to mature, the complainant was surprised to see that the seeds supplied by Op No.1 was mixed one as about 30% crop was fully matured, 60% crop was still green and whereas the remaining 10% was still having flowers. Due to mixture of seed of the poor quality, the next crop of the complainant became very late, the yield was very low as well as the next crop could not sown in time.  The complainant made complaint to Op No.1 regarding supply of mixed seeds on 1^st February, 2017 but no action was taken.  The complainant also made a complaint to Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Kurukshetra on 8.2.2017 and requested to give inspection report and the Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Kurukshetra constituted a team, who inspected the spot on 17.2.2017 and gave their report on 22.2.2017 and they found that 30% crop was fully matured, 60% crop was still green whereas the remaining 10% was still having flowers due to mixing of seeds.  Thus, the complainant has suffered a total loss of Rs.2,90,000/-.  Hence, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant as the complainant has suffered the loss due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, complainant claims Rs.2,90,000/- a compensation for the loss suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant.

3.            Ops have failed to come present despite service and as such, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 20.7.2017.

4.             The complainant has proved on record his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, cash memo as Ex.C1, photostat copies of Jamabandies as Ex.C2, photo stat copy of application dated 8.2.2017 as Ex.C3, photo stat copy of letter dated 22.2.2017 as Ex.C4, inspection report as Ex.C5, photo stat copy of letter dated 15.2.2017 as Ex.C6, photographs of crop as Ex.C7 to C17, postal receipt as Ex.C18, postal order as Ex.C19, photo stat copy of Rules 3(1) as Ex.C20, photo stat copy of letter regarding RTI dated 5.4.2017 as Ex.C21, photo stat copy of letter as well as inspection report C22 & C23 and photo stat copy of envelop as Ex.C24  and closed the evidence. 

              It is pertinent to mention here that the witness Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, Halqa Patwari, Badtali was summoned by this Forum on the application of complainant.  Statement of said witness was recorded and vide his statement recorded separately on 05.04.2018 and the jamabandi for the year were tendered in evidence as Ex.C-25 and Ex.C-26. 

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record carefully.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that that the complainant purchased 2 Kg. of mustard seed for a sum of Rs.900/- from the Op No.1 and sown the said seed in 8 kanal 5 marla (1¼ acre) of land.  The grievance of the complainant is that when the mustard crop of complainant in 8 kanal 5 marla was matured, the complainant found that the seeds supplied by the Op No.1 was mixed as about 30% crop was fully matured, 60% crop was still green and the remaining 10% was still having flowered.  The complainant has also placed on the file the report of Agriculture Department, Ex.C5.  It is  visible from the report, Ex.C5 that there was possibility of about 70% other variety of the seed supplied by the Ops which caused financial damage to the complainant.  So, from the said report, it is clear that the seed supplied by the Ops was of defective and sub-standard.  The complainant has also supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C26.  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte.  The counsel of complainant has placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2012(1) RCR (Civil) page 838 titled as M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and another (SC); revision petition No.2084 of 2017, date of decision: 31.07.2017 titled as Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. T.Salanma & others (NC); revision petition No.635 of 2012, date of decision: 23.02.2017 titled as PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bichha Ram & another (NC); 2009(2) CPJ page 24 titled as National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nalia Narsimha Rao (NC) and First Appeal No.743 of 2015, date of decision: 08.03.2017 titled as M/s. Sahib Seeds Ltd. etc. Vs. Satish Kumar (SCDRC).  In the present case, the complainant has demanded Rs.2,90,000/- as loss suffered by him but we assess the loss as per calculation mentioned below:-

Total land	Expected yield	Expected Rate	Loss	Total loss
1¼ acre	10 Quintal per acre	Rs.4200/- per acre	Rs.4200/-x10 quintal=Rs.42,000/-x70%loss (as per report,Ex.C5)=Rs.29,400/- per acre	Rs.36,750/-

 

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to pay Rs.36,750/- as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation 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 this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:03.12.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.