DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 371 of 9.9.2016
Date of decision 20.10.2016
Arshdeep Singh son of Jarnail Singh, resident of village Todarpur, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- M/s Baldev Singh and Sons, Commission Agents, Shop No.3, New Subzi Mandi, through its Prop. Baldev Singh.
- M/s Aman Fruit Company, Commission Agents, Shop No.3, New Subzi Mandi, Samana, through Baldev Singh.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Present: Sh.S.S.Sidhu,Adv. proxy counsel for
Sh.Dharminder Singh Anttal,Adv.
counsel for the complainant.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Arshdeep Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay Rs.13,60,400/- on account of purchase of seed of peas alongwith interest @18% P.A. from the date of purchase till actual payment
- To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for causing mental agony and harassment
- To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
- Any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that O.Ps No.1&2 are doing the business of fruit and vegetables and also selling the seeds of fruits and vegetable. Accordingly, for the purpose of sowing the pea seeds in agricultural land, owned by himself and also taken on lease, he purchased pea seeds, weighing 6 Qtl.40 Kg. from them on 30.9.2015 @ Rs.260/- per kg. The Ops assured him that pea seeds will germinate within 10-12 days from the date of sowing of the said seeds. He sown the pea seeds in 11 killas of land, situated at village Todarpur, Tehsil Samana, District, Patiala. But to his utter surprise, after passing of more than 12 days, the pea seeds sown by him did not germinate/grow. He approached O.Ps. No.1&2 and apprised them about the fact that they told him to wait for another 7 days. But even after waiting for another 7 days, the pea seeds did not germinate properly. Lateron, it came to his knowledge, that the seeds sown by him were old and adulterated. Number of other farmers also complained about non germination of pea seeds before the Aarti Association, Samana. The said Aarti Association held a meeting under the Presidentship of Sh.Raj Kumar and it was decided that in case any farmer, who had purchased the pea seeds, fetches production of less than 30 Qtl. of peas, then the price of the pea seeds will not be claimed. He fetched production of about 20 Qtl. of peas, from one killa of land, whereas, he would have fetched about 45/50 Qtl of peas from one killa of land. Due to non germination/growing of the pea seeds , he could not earn any amount inspite of the fact that he had paid Rs.4000/- per killa as labour charges . He had taken the land on lease @ Rs.50,000/- per killa, for sowing the crops, including sowing pea seeds. In the land, where he sown the pea seeds, he could not sow any other crop, as the period to sow the said crop was already over/lapsed. In this way, he suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.13,60,400/- i.e. Rs.166,400/- on account of purchase of pea seeds, Rs.44,000/- paid on account of labour, Rs.5,50,000/- paid on account of theka of the land, Rs.5,00,000/- loss on account of less profit from the land and Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment. He time and again requested the O.Ps. for the payment of the above said amount but every time they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. A legal notice dated 18.6.2016 was also got served upon the O.Ps for the payment of the aforesaid amount but to no effect. There is thus not only deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps but they also indulged in unfair trade practice.
3. We have perused the complaint and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
4. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that the pea seeds having weight of 6 Ql. 40 KG, which he purchased on 30.9.2015@ of Rs.260 /-per k.g. from Ops no.1&2 did not germinate. Even other framers also complained about non germination of pea seeds before Aarti Assocation, Samana.A meeting of Aarti Association, Samana, under the Presidentship of Raj Kumar was held and it was decided that in case, if any, farmer who had purchased the pea seeds, from Sh.Baldev Singh, fetches, production of less than 30 Ql. of peas then the price of the pea seeds, would not be claimed and the said farmer would not pay any amount to the Ops. The yield of pea seeds, in the case of complainant, was less than 20 Ql per killa and as such, he has suffered huge loss. Therefore, the Ops be directed to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him as prayed for in the complaint.
5. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Hans Vs. Goyal Eye Institute & Others, CC No.135 of 2011, decided on 30.3.2012, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the Consumer Foras are required to examine the complaint, to find out as to whether, the complainant is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, reads as under:
“ (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.”
In order to prove that complainant is a ‘consumer’ qua the Ops as envisaged in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, the complainant, alongwith the complaint has not annexed any document in the shape of bill/invoice, issued by Ops no.1&2 regarding purchase of pea seeds by him for a consideration, which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. Even copy of minutes of meeting dated 17.1.2016 annexed alongwith the complaint does not reflect that complainant has purchased the pea seeds in question from the said Ops only. In the absence of any document, we have no reason to believe that the complainant has purchased the pea seeds in question from the Ops by paying any consideration amount. Thus, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer qua the Ops. Consequently, we dismiss the complaint in limine without any order as to costs. Certified copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
NEENA SANDHU
President
NEELAM GUPTA
Member
Dated:20.10.2016
