Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Consumer Complaint No. 167
Instituted on: 05.04.2024
Decided on: 18.11.2024
Anil S/o Sh. Sumer Singh, R/o Village-Mungan, Tehsil and District Rohtak, Haryana.
….Complainant
Vs.
1. Manish son of Sh. Ram Kumar, Prop. Messer DadiPilasanKhad-Beej Bhandar, Bakheta, District - Rohtak, Haryana.
2. Shri Ram Beej Company, Village Baniyani, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak.
……Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the complaint, as per the complainant, are that he had purchased 40 Kgsof wheat seed of Shri Ram Company fromopposite party No.1 M/s DadiPilasanKhadBeej Bhandar, Bakheta, Distt.Rohtak, vide invoice no. 1806 dated 04/11/2023 and sown the samein his fields at right time in the month of November. When the wheat crop was grown up with buds, the complainant found that some wheat plants were larger than other plants, which showed that there was mixing of some other variety of seed/plants. Upon this, the matter was reported to the Deputy Director,Agriculture Department on 06.03.2024 and the fields of complainant were got inspected by the Agriculture Department in the presence of both complainant as well as the proprietor of the firm M/s DadiPilasanKhad-Beej Bhandar. The Inspection report revealed that there was mixing of other variety seeds upto 15% to 20%. The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,00,000/- due to supply of mixed variety of seed. Hence, this complaint and it has been prayed that the complainant opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 100000/- on account of damages, to pay 50,000/- for harassment and Rs. 11,000/- for litigation expenses i.e. total sum of Rs.1,61,000/- to the complainant besides any other relief, for which the complainant is found entitled.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties through registered post but the same were not received back either served or unserved. However, the track report revealed that the notices were duly served upon the opposite parties. As such, opposite party no. 1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.05.2024 of this Commission.
3. In the exparte evidence, the complainanthas tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 and closed the same on dated 06.09.2024.
4. We have heard the arguments of the complainant, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, it is not disputed that complainant had purchased the wheat seeds(Shri Ram 1270) from the opposite party no.1 on dated 04.11.2023 for a sum of Rs.1450/- and the same is proved from the copy of invoice placed on record as Ex.C1. As per the letter Ex.C4 dated 14.03.2024, a committee was constituted by the Deputy Director Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Rohtak for inspecting the fields of the complainant. As per Inspection Report dated 02.04.2024 placed on record as Ex.C3, it was found that there was mixing of 15% to 20% of other variety of wheat plants in fields of complainant. Hence it is proved that the opposite party no.1 had sold the alleged seeds in the name of ‘Shri Ram 1270’ but as per the report Ex.C3,the same were found as mixed quality of seeds, which shows that there is unfair trade practice/deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The contention of the complainant is that due to alleged mixing of seeds, complainant could not receive the proper price of his yield and has suffered financial loss beside the mental agony and harassment. On the other hand, opposite parties did not appear before this Commission, despite service of notices through registered post. As such, it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations levelled by the complainant against the opposite parties stands proved and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. However, the complainant has not placed on record any document to prove the fact that how much loss he has suffered due to alleged mixing of seeds. Hence, as per our opinion he is entitled for a lump sum compensation of Rs.10000/- from the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.2.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay a lump sumamount of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of loss of crops and also to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) from the date of decision till its realisation to the complainant.
7. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
18.11.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
