Haryana

Karnal

CC/85/2021

Jai Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aggarwal Seeds Store - Opp.Party(s)

Gourav Mandhan

21 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 85 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt 10.02.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 21.08.2024

 

Jai Chand son of Shri Man Singh, resident of village Mukhali, tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. M/s Aggarwal Seeds Store, near Punjab National Bank Radaur Road Ladwa, District Kurukshetra through its proprietor.
2. Ajit seeds Pvt. Ltd, 2^nd floor Tapdia Tersaterrances Adalt Road, District Aurangabad (Maharashtra) Pin.431001 through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur..…..Member

 

 Argued by: None for the parties.

 

                 (Sarvjeet Kaur, Memebr)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and earns his livelihood from that source. OP no.2 is the manufacturer of 1509 paddy seeds and OP no.1 deals in sale of seeds and Pesticides. The complainant purchased 15 kg of PB-1509 and complainant paid a sum of Rs.1650/- to the OP no.1 and in this regard OP issued the cash memo no.8593 dated 09.05.2019. After purchase of the abovesaid seeds, complainant prepared the nursery and thereafter planted in the fields as per the norms and instructions of the OP. The complainant has spent more than Rs.15,000/- per acres. When the paddy crop was ready to come out as half of paddy crop was not ready to come out, and half of the paddy crop was come out. After seen the paddy crop, the complainant has become stunt and approached to the OP no.1 and told about the situation of the paddy crop. OP no.1 inspected the fields of complainant and found that some of the paddy crop was ready to come out and some of the paddy crop was come out. Thereafter, complainant moved an application before the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal to inspect the Agriculture land and to report about the loss. Thereafter, the officials of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee and visited the fields of the complainant and inspected the paddy crop and observed that the seeds provided by the OP no.1 are not of PB-1509 variety. The officers of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal have assessed the loss to the tune of 35% to 45%. The seeds provided by the OP to the complainant were of inferior quality and due to that complainant has suffered huge loss. Complainant after receiving the report from the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal approached the OP no.1, who had not supplied the seeds of PB-1509 rather had supplied seeds of other inferior quality. The yield of the crops from 3 acres came out only 46 quintals whereas the average yield paddy in the near fields is approximately 25 quintals per acre. It is further alleged that the seeds supplied by the OPs has been purchased in the market in the less rate of Rs.1835/- instead of Rs.2500/- because the seeds supplied by the OPs was not of PB1509 and due to this reason the complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,769/-. The OPs sold the inferior quality of seeds knowingly and intentionally only just to cause loss to the complainant and to some other farmer of the locality. The complainant requested the OP to compensate him on account of inferior quality of seeds, but OP has not paid any heed to the genuine request of complainant. Due to this act and conduct of OPs, complainant has suffered mental pain, agony, harassment as well as financial loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has not stated whether he had made such complaint to the Seed Inspector to send the seed for analysis nor has he stated anything with regard to the result of such analysis with regard to the quality of the seed. The complainant has not filed on record any document in respect of the ownership and cultivation of the land in support of the contentions and averments made by him in the complaint. The complaint is based on mere assumptions and presumptions. The complainant has not followed the procedure under section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Government after due satisfaction only, has given the consent to the OP no.2 to sell its product in the market. The present complaint is vague and is not maintainable either in law or facts stated therein. The defect in the seeds with regard to the genetic purity, can only be decided on sending the alleged seed to the laboratory for testing the same for the per centage of purity a such the complaint cannot be maintainable for deciding the genetic purity of the seed in absence of the report from the laboratory. It is further pleaded that complainant moved an application before Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal and the Farmer Welfare Department on 11.09.2019. The so-called inspection report dated 20.09.2019 might have been prepared behind the back of the representatives of the OPs. In fact, the Government officers are bound to inform the concerned manufacturer and the agent of the inspecting so called land of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, bill/cash credit memo dated 09.05.2019 Ex.C1, Form-J Ex.C2, copy of application to Agriculture Department Ex.C3, copy of letter from Agriculture Department dated 17.10.2019 Ex.C4, copy of inspection report Ex.C5, copy of legal notice dated 15.01.2020 and its postal receipts Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 22.03.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and copy of Government Notification dated 03.01.2002 Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 06.12.2023  by suffering separate statement.

6.             It is pertinent to mention here that, none has put into appearance on behalf of the parties. The position remained the same on the last two adjourned dates. The complaint pertains to the year 2021, hence we will decide the complaint on the basis of documentary evidence available on the file

7.             We have perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             As per version of the complainant, he purchased 15Kgs of PB-1509 from the OP no.1 and sowed the said seeds in his fields. OPs supplied the different quality seeds due to that he has suffered a great financial loss. He made a complaint before Deputy Director Agriculture Officer, Karnal for inspection of the crop. The Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, constituted a committee and said Committee has inspected the fields and found that the seeds provided by the OP no.1 are not of PB-1509 and the officers of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal have assessed the loss to the tune of 35% to 45%. Due to supply of different quality of the seed by the OPs, complainant has suffered loss huge financial loss.

9.             As per version of the OPs, the official of the Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant in the absence of OPs. Hence said inspection report has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The seed supplied by the OPs neither inferior nor different variety.

10.           In the present complaint, it is neither the case for inferior quality of seed nor for mixing in the seed, rather case is for supplying the seed of other variety. Hence, the pleas taken by the OPs has no force.

11.           It is evident from the cash memo Ex.C1 dated 09.05.2021 that the complainant purchased 15Kgs seeds of PB-1509 from the OP no.1, amounting to Rs.1650/-. Complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee on 11.09.2019 and Inspection Committee prepared its report Ex.C5. In the said report, it is mentioned that the seeds provided by the OP no.1 is not of PB-1509 and there is probability of the loss to the extent of 35% to 45%.  It has been proved from the inspection report that OPs have not supplied the seed of PB-1509 variety but had charged the cost of PB-1509 variety of seeds.

12.           Vide cash memo/Farm J Ex.C2 dated 22.09.2019 issued by M/s Arjun Singh Bhim Singh Commission Agent (Aarti), booth no.9, New Anaj Mandi, Ladwa (Kurukshetra) complainant had sold his 46 quintal produce for the rate of Rs.1895/- per quintal for total amount of Rs.87170/-. In the said Form-J, the variety of the crop has been shown as Sughanda AB. Complainant purchased the paddy seed of PB-1509 variety. In the year of 2019, the rate of the PB-1509 was approximately Rs.2500/- per quintal and yield was 22 quintal per acre approximately.  Neither the complainant got proper yield nor actual rate according to PB-1509 variety. Complainant had purchased 15kgs seed from the OPs for three acres of land. If the OPs had supplied the PB-1509 variety complainant would have earned Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.50000/-per acre x3) but as per Farm J, he had earned only Rs.87,170/- in total for three acres. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the remaining amount i.e. Rs.62830/-. (Rs.1,50,000-87170/-) alongwith compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses.

13.           Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.62,830/- (Rs.sixty two thousand eight hundred thirty only) to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment and towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:21.08.2024    

                                                            President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.       

 

          (Sarvjeet Kaur)    

                     Member