Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/81/2020

Munish Kumar Singhal S/o Ramesh Chand Singhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.P.Singh

11 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

    Consumer Complaint No.81 of 2020

                                                          Date of Instt.:17.02.2020

    Date of Decision:11.02.2022.

 

Munish Kumar Singal son of Sh.Ramesh Chand Singal, resident of House No.67/1, Mahavir Colony, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

1.M/s Aggarwal Seeds Store, Radour Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra through its Prop.Ashok Aggarwal.

2.Ajeet Seeds Private Limited, Dossi Chamber, Block-204, Halden Guda, Hyderabad – 500029 Telgana through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

        ….…Opposite parties.

 

                Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

Present:     Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                Ops  ex parte.

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Munish Kumar against M/s Aggarwal Seeds etc- the opposite party.

 

2.               The brief facts of the complaint are that the OP No.2  is manufacturer of the seeds namely PB-1509 whereas the OP No.1 is its dealer.  The complainant had purchased paddy seed of Marka PB 1509  from the OP No.1 vide bill No.523 dated 19.05.2019 for Rs.7150/- and had sown the said seed as per the instructions of the Ops after preparing the fields properly, in khewat No.110/97 khatoni No.120, khasra No.32/3/4/1 vide jamabandi for the year 2016-17 and Khewat No.249. 250 /235/236 khatoni  no.281, khasra No.32/1.2,2/2,9, 10 vide jamabandi for the year 2016-2017.   The complainant was not aware about the poor quality of the seeds which were supplied by the Ops and the complainant saw the crop he came to know that the seed is not of PB-1509 rather it was a poor quality seeds.  On the request of complainant, OP No.1 inspected the fields of the complainant and found that the seed is not of 1509. On the application of the complainant District Agriculture Officer, Kurukshetra visited the fields of the complainant and on inspection found that the crops of paddy in 15 acres of the land of the complainant are not of PB-1509, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and has prayed that compensation of Rs..4.50 lacs for the damages to the crop  alongwith compensation for mental harassment and agony faced by the complainant including litigation be also awarded.

 

3.             Ops were duly served upon, but they failed to appear and contest the case, therefore, the Ops  were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.11.2021.

 

4.             In support of his case, the complainant has filed affidavit  Ex.CW1/A and tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.

 

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reasserting the averments made in the complaint has argued that that the OP No.2  is manufacturer of the seeds namely PB-1509 whereas the OP No.1 is its dealer.  It is further argued that the  complainant had purchased paddy seed of Marka PB 1509  from the OP No.1 vide bill No.523 dated 19.05.2019 for Rs.7150/- and had sown the said seed as per the instructions of the Ops after preparing the fields properly, in khewat No.110/97 khatoni No.120, khasra No.32/3/4/1 vide jamabandi for the year 2016-17 and Khewat No.249. 250 /235/236 khatoni  no.281, khasra No.32/1.2,2/2,9, 10 vide jamabandi for the year 2016-2017.   It is argued that the complainant was not aware about the poor quality of the seeds which were supplied by the Ops and the complainant saw the crop he came to know that the seed is not of PB-1509 rather it was a poor quality seeds.  On the request of complainant, OP No.1 inspected the fields of the complainant and found that the seed is not of 1509. On the application of the complainant District Agriculture Officer, Kurukshetra visited the fields of the complainant and on inspection found that the crops of paddy in 15 acres of the land of the complainant are not of PB-1509, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and has prayed that compensation of Rs..4.50 lacs for the damages to the crop  alongwith compensation for mental harassment and agony faced by the complainant including litigation be also awarded.

 

7.             From the perusal of the complaint it is established that the complainant had sown paddy PB-1509  crop in his land measuring 15 acres. He has placed on the file copies of J Form  showing the sale of the paddy crop. He has also placed on the file a paper Mark “B” issued by M/s Atma Ram Chaman Lal  whereby he has  tried to prove that he has received less price due to another type of paddy crop than PB 1509. He has also placed on record copy of Khasra Girdwari  to show that he had sown the paddy  crop on the land as detailed in para No.4 of the complaint. To show the product of the crop he has placed on the file J-Form mark “C” to Mark “E”. He has sought the compensation of Rs.4.50 lacs for the  loss in the crop  due to sale of another quality seeds and less price rate of the said crop. However, this version of the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged because the Ops were proceeded against ex parte as they failed to appear and contest the case. However, in our view the copy of the khasra girdwari shows Mark “A” that he had sown the paddy crop but it does not prove so much loss to the complainant. In the report Agriculture Officers dated 30.09.2019 shows that the said seeds were not of PB 1509 but simultaneously it is proved that due to sale of another quality seeds which fetched low rate, the complainant has suffered loss due to deficiency on the part of the Ops. Therefore, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and totality of the present case, we think it proper to award the compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lump sum to the complainant due to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be accepted.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion and findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of  Rs.50,000/-  alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till its actual realization to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings u/s 71  of the Consumer Protection Act. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 11.02.2022                                                 President.

 

                                Member             Member.