Haryana

Jind

CC/15/8

Naresh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Chirag Beej Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Kumar

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 02 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 2.1.2015
   Date of final order: 8.8.2016

Naresh s/o Balbir Singh r/o village Daroli Khera, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. 
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
M/s Chirag Beej Bhandar old Sabzi Mandi, Narwana through its Prop.

                                                         …..Opposite party.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    
    
Present: Sh. Naresh complainant in person.
             Sh. J.P. Sharma Adv. for opposite parties.
         
ORDER:
            The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant had purchased  Shan Paddy seed-1121 for 6 acres for a sum of Rs.10,200/- vide bill No.628 dated 10.6.2014 from opposite party. The complainant prepared his 6 acres of land for sowing the paddy seeds and spent huge amount. The opposite party had sold sub-standard/mis-branded paddy seeds to him. Thereafter, the complainant had moved an application to the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Narwana. The team of Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant and prepared a report vide memo No.1214 dated 
            Naresh Vs. M/s Chirag Beej Bhandar 
                    …2…
5.12.2014 and it was observed that 30% off type plants were present in the field. The complainant visited the shop of  opposite party   and requested to give a compensation due to loss of his paddy crops. The complainant served a legal notice dated 10.12.2014 through his counsel upon the opposite party but all in vain.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to  pay a sum of Rs.4,25,000/-  on account of losses  due to inferior quality of seeds as well as to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.     Upon notice, the opposite party has  put in appearance and filed the  written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and  complaint is false and frivolous.  On merits, it is contended that  the opposite party is only a retailer of the company and Shakti Seeds Pvt. Ltd. having registered office at 3-6-439/A, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) is the manufacturer of the seed. The complainant has not made the manufacturer of paddy seeds as party  in this complaint. The opposite party is only retailer and  manufacturing company is responsible of the same. The opposite party never sold sub standard seed to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled any compensation from the opposite party.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for.  

            Naresh Vs. M/s Chirag Beej Bhandar 
                    …3…
3.    In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1,   test report dated 5.12.2014 Ex. C-2, cash memo Ex. C-3 and postal receipt Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced affidavit of Sh. Deepak Munjal Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that he had purchased  Shan Paddy Seed-1121 for a sum of rs.10,200/- vide bill No.628 dated 10.6.2014 from opposite party. The opposite party had sold sub-stnadard/mix branded paddy seeds to the complainant. It is further argued that the complainant had moved an application to the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Narwana and the team of Agriculture Department inspected the fields of complainant and found 30% off type plants.  In this way the complainant  has suffered a huge loss. In support of his case he placed on record the  cash memo Ex. C-3 and  inspection report Ex. C-2, it is very much clear that there were 30% off type plants. In view of the above report of the Agriculture officers, the complainant has suffered a loss and he is entitled the relief. 
5.    On the other hand, counsel for opposite party has argued that the   opposite party is retailer  and he had purchased the above said seeds in sealed packet form the manufacturing company and sold the same to the farmers so opposite party is not responsible of any sub-standard or mis-branded of the seed. It is further argued that the manufacturing company is responsible if the seed is found sub-stnadard or mis-
            Naresh Vs. M/s Chirag Beej Bhandar 
                    …4…
branded and complainant has not made manufacturing company as party in this complaint in this regard opposite party had taken the specific objection in the written statement that opposite party is only a retailer, in fact Shakti Seeds Pvt. Ltd. having registered office as 3-6-439/A, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad is a manufacturer of the seed and same is liable to be added as a  necessary party in the present complaint but inspite of taking the above said objection, the complainant had not made a party so complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground.    
6.    After hearing Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. We are of the considered view that the complainant had purchased the paddy seeds from the opposite party and opposite party is  only retailer and he had purchased the seeds from the manufacturing company and sold to the farmers so the opposite party is not responsible of any sub-staandard or mis-branded of the seed in question and manufacturing company is responsible if the seed is found  of inferior quality but the complainant has not made manufacturing company as party in this complaint.  
7.    In the above said discussion, the complainant had  not made manufacturing company as necessary party. In such cases manufacturer is necessary party for adjudication of the complaint. So in the absence of without impleading  necessary party, this Forum cannot decide the case on merit.  Hence, the complaint of the 

            Naresh Vs. M/s Chirag Beej Bhandar 
                    …5…
complainant is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance. 
Announced on: 8.8.2016
                                 President,
          Member        Member             District Consumer Disputes                                           Redressal Forum, Jind

            Naresh Vs. M/s Chirag Beej Bhandar 
                    

Present: Sh. Naresh complainant in person.
             Sh. J.P. Sharma Adv. for opposite parties.

            Arguments heard. To come up on 8.8.2016 for orders. 
                                President,
        Member       Member                DCDRF, Jind
                                  3.8.2016

Present: Sh. Naresh complainant in person.
             Sh. J.P. Sharma Adv. for opposite parties.

             Order announced, vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                President,
    Member              Member                DCDRF, Jind
                                8.8.2016