Punjab

Sangrur

CC/14/2018

Paramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Garg Seed Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Yogesh Gupta

25 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    14

                                                Instituted on:      11.01.2018

                                                Decided on:       25.02.2019

 

Paramjit Singh son of Sh. Jeon Singh, Village Issapur (Dhuri) District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     M/s. Garg Seed Corporation, Opp. PAU Gate No.2, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its partner.

2.     M/s. Super Gold Karnal Seed Farm, Kishanpura Mohalla, Near Gurdwara, Haripura Road, Sangrur through its partner.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Yogesh Gupta, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                Mrs.Manisha, Member.

 

 

               

Order by : Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member.

 

1.             Shri Paramjit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased paddy seeds of variety 666 and 126 vide invoice number 1857 dated 28.4.2017 from OP number 2. The complainant purchased 20 Kg seeds of 666 @ Rs.80/- per Kg and also purchased 10 Kg seeds 126  @ Rs.50/- per kg. The said seeds were defective and crop was inspected by the officials of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Sangrur.  It is further averred that the seeds supplied by the OPs were of mix quality as per the report and due to that the yield was low.  As such, the complainant has suffered a loss of about Rs.One lac due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

2.             Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer according to under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is baseless and flagrant, that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence, that the complaint has been filed just to blackmail the OPs as the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits,  it is stated that the same seeds of quality were sold to the other farmers, but there was no complaint regarding the seeds or regarding any defect in the seeds as well as regarding the yield of crop.  It is stated that the report has been made by the officer without visiting any field and made the report in the office.  Further it is mentioned that according to the recommendations of the PAU, Ludhiana, 8 KG seeds of paddy is needed for one acre/killa and the complainant had purchased 30 Kg. seeds of two varieties which is meant for four acre, but according to the report, the officials have inspected 5.5 acres/killa of field of the complainant and it is not possible to sow the 5.5 acre/killa with 30 KG seeds. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/2 documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The complainant and OP number 1 submitted the written arguments.

 

               

5.             It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the paddy seeds of quality/quantity of 666/20 KGs @ Rs.80/- per Kg. and another PR 126/10 KGs @ Rs.50/- per KG from the OPs for plantation of the paddy in his fields on 28.7.2017 (quantity of 60 Kgs. Of the quality 666 has been found to be mentioned in the bill Ex.C-8).  Fearing that he might get the less yield, he complained to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Sangrur vide letter dated 18.09.2017 in this regard, on account of adulteration of the paddy seeds purchased by him from the OPs and requested that the field visit may be made and report may be prepared in this regard and the action be taken against the OPs Ex.C-16.  On the request of the complainant, action was taken by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Sangrur and on the basis of the test conducted by his office, informed the complainant vide letter dated 25.10.2019 regarding the yields in the fields of the complainant as 14.950 KGs and 15.680 KGs per marla. Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-12 and confirmed that adulteration had been found in the paddy seeds which the complainant had planted/sown in his 5.5 acres of land. While going through the documents submitted by the complainant it has been observed that the paddy estimate survey performa 2 had been duly filled in with all the relevant details with respect to the owner of the fields, dimensions of the fields, rate of produce (on the experimental basis etc.) duly signed by the Agriculture Development Officer Sangrur and of the owner/farmer/his helper. Further the CAO Sangrur vide letter 9.7.2018 intimated the complainant that average paddy produce (KG per hectare) for the paddy year 2017-2018 is 7576 KG, Ex.C-19. Also in the additional evidence produced by the complainant, the complainant has submitted that the average crop of one marla comes out to be  7576/395 = 19.179 KGs and has submitted that the crop of the complainant is less as per the average crop for the year 2017-18 and the complainant suffered due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The Ops also did not reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant.  The learned counsel for the Ops has cited various authorities, such as, Narender Kumar versus M/s. Arora Trading Company and others 2007(2) CLT 683, Syngenta India Limited versus P. Chowdaiah and others 2013(4)CLT 72,  Indian Farmers Fertilizers Coop. Ltd. versus Ram Swaroop I (2015) CPJ 530, Dy. Director of Agriculture versus Narottam Patra and others 2014(3) CPJ 94 and Indo American Hybrid Seeds and another versus Vijayakumar Shankarao and another 2007(2) CPJ 148, but none of these rulings are helpful to the case of the OPs and the ratio of these cases are not applicable in the present case.

 

6.             In the sequel of above discussion, we are of the firm opinion that OPs indulged in unfair trade practice and loss is calculated as under:-

 

A.             Average crop/paddy produced in the field of the complainant on trial basis as per the report of Chief Agriculture Officer, Sangrur, Ex.C-17 = 14.950+15.680/2 = 15.315 KGs/Marla.

B.             Average crop/paddy produced  declared by CAO Sangrur as per Ex.C-18 = 7576/395 = 19.179 KG/Marla.

C.             Average crop loss per marla=19.179 minus 15.315

                = 3.864 KG.

D.             Average crop loss per acre  = 3.864 x160 =618.24KG.

E.             Average crop loss for 5.5 acres  =

                518.24 x 5.5  =  3400 KG.

F.             Rate per quintal of paddy for the year 2017-18 as per

                Form J Ex.C-4  = Rs.1590/-.

G)            Total loss of paddy Rs.1590 x 3400 KGs.

        = Rs.54060/-.

               

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.54060/- on account of crop loss. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2100/- towards the cost of seeds received by the OPs, Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

               

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of forty five days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

 

                        Pronounced.

                        February 25, 2019.

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                           Presiding  Member

 

 

 

                                                                (Manisha)

                                                                  Member