M/s Luxmi Sales Corporation V/S Ram Pal - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

731/09

Ram Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Luxmi Sales Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. N.K. Zak

05 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

Complaint No.731 of 2009

Date of instt.: 3.11.2009

Date of decision:05.01.2016.

Ram Pal son of Shri Babu Ram resident of village Nighdu tehsil and district Karnal.

……..Complainant.

Vs.

1.M/s Luxmi Sales Corporation through its Prop/Partner Shri Raj Kumar, Bir Badalwa road, Nighdu, tehsil and district Karnal.

2.Shakthi Seeds Pvt. 3-6-439/A, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) through its Prop/Partner.. ……… Opposite Parties.

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

Protection Act.

Before Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:- Sh.N.K.Zak Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.G.S.Kadyan Advocate for the OP No.1.

Sh.Satbir Kaushik Advocate for the OP No.2.

ORDER:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, ( herein after referred to as the Act) on the averments that he purchased nine bags of two Kg each of Hybrid Goldy paddy seed of batch No.715/4511, vide bill No. 3017 dated 3.5.2008 for a sum of Rs.5850/- @ Rs.650/- each bag of from Opposite Party No.1. .He had sown the said seed in his field and took all the precautions and method for good yield. However, the yield was not upto the mark and crop had not grown to its full potential. He approached the Opposite Party No.1 and complained about the interior quality of seed sold to him, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not pay heed to his requests and even did not visit the field, rather refused to entertain his complaint. Thereafter, he moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, for inspecting his paddy crop. The committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, inspected his field on 20.8.2008 and found that there was no uniformity in maturity in the paddy crop and reported that approximately 10% plants were in flowering stage, 22% in dough stage and remaining 68% were physiologically matured/ripened and ready for harvesting. The estimated loss of yield was assessed as 32%.It has further been alleged that the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 and gave copy of the report issued by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal but the Opposite Party No.1 did not listen to him. In this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties .

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party no.1 put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is not legally maintainable in the present form; that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the Opposite Party No.1; that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law; that the complainant did not comply with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

On merits, it has been submitted that report of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, was false, incorrect and the same was prepared in the absence of the Opposite Party. No information was given to the Opposite Party regarding visit of the technical committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied.

3. The Opposite Party No.2 was impleaded lateron on the application of the Opposite Party No.1 and notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party no.2 . The Opposite Party no.2 also appeared, but no separate written statement was filed and its counsel made statement on 30.4.2012 adopting the written statement already filed by the Opposite Party no.1.

4. In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

5. On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties affidavit of Jasbir Singh attorney of Opposite Party no.2 Ex.RW1/A and copy of special power of attorney Ex.R1 have been tendered.

6. We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

7. As per the case of the complainant he had purchased nine packets of 2 Kgs. each of Hybrid gold paddy seed from Opposite Party No.1 and had sown the same in his field. Opposite Party no.1 in the written statement has not admitted the factum of sale of seed to the complainant but this fact stood admitted when the Opposite Party no.1 moved application for impleading Opposite Party no.2 as manufacturer of the seed sold by it to the complainant. Moreover, the copy of the bill Ex.C2 also proves that the complainant had purchased nine packets of two Kgs. each of Hybrid Goldy Paddy seed bearing batch NO.115/4511 @ Rs.650/- each packet, for a total sum of Rs.5850/-, on 2.5.2008.

8. The complainant has further alleged that he had sown the said seed in his fields but after sometime it was found that seed was of inferior quality and had not grown to its full potential. The complainant relied upon the report of the technical committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal. The copy of report is Ex.C3, according to which the technical committee visited his field on 20.8.2008 and observed that there was no uniformity in maturity/ripening of the paddy crop. Approximately 10% plants were in flowering stage, 22% in dough stage and remaining 68% were physiologically matured/ripened and ready for harvesting. The committee observed loss as 32% due to uneven maturity/ripening.

9. The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties put a great thrust upon the contention that no notice of the inspection of the field of the complainant by the technical committee was ever given to the Opposite Parties and the report was prepared behind their back at the instance of the complainant. Therefore, such report cannot form basis for arriving at the conclusion that seed was defective and of mixed variety. It has further been argued that no khasra girdwari and Jamabandi has been produced by the complainant to show that he had planted paddy crop in his five acres of land. Even in the report Ex.C3, khasra numbers of the land inspected by the committee have not been mentioned. Therefore, evidence of the complainant is not sufficient to establish that Opposite Parties had supplied defective seed to the complainant.

10. The complainant has produced writing of Sh.Isham Singh son of Bir Singh resident of Habetpur Ex.C4, according to which he had leased out five acres of land to the complainant for one year @ Rs.27500/- per acre. No doubt record of khasra girdwari has not been produced, but this fact cannot be ignored that in the villages, farmers who do not own sufficient land, take the land of other Farmers on yearly lease to earn their livelihood and generally for such lease, no legal document is executed between the parties. The complainant had purchased paddy seed from the Opposite Party no.1 and the technical committee appointed by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, found that the complainant had planted paddy in the land measuring five acres. When the complainant found that his paddy was uneven in maturity, he could complain about the seed to the Opposite Parties and if the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to his complaint, he could have only option to approach the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, for inspecting his fields by the technical persons of agriculture department and report about the condition of his paddy crop. Accordingly, the complainant approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, for getting inspected his fields for assessment of his loss. Thereafter, Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee consisting of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Karnal, two subject matter specialists, Karnal, Senior Coordinator, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, (Chaudhary Charan Singh Agriculture University) Karnal. They inspected the fields of the complainant on 20.8.2008 and observed that there was uneven maturity/ripening in the paddy crop of the complainant due to which estimated loss could be 32% per acre. The complainant in his affidavit Ex.C1 has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. The Opposite Parties might have sold same variety of seed of the same lot to other farmers also. Those farmers could be best witnesses to support the plea of the Opposite Parties that seed of that lot was of good quality, but affidavit of none of such farmers has been produced by the Opposite Parties for the reasons best known to them. The only evidence of the Opposite Parties is affidavit of Sh.Jasbir Singh, Special attorney of Opposite Party no.2, who has reasserted the contents of the written statement. His statement by way of affidavit is not sufficient to discard the evidence of the complainant.

10. From the evidence led by the complainant, it is established that seed supplied by the Opposite Parties was of mixed variety due to which there was uneven maturity/ripening of the paddy crop planted by the complainant in his five acres of land. It is worth while to add that product/yield of any crop depends upon so many factors and not only on the variety of the seed. The technical committee assessed the loss just by approximation. The complainant by doing extra labour could certainly get more yield by harvesting different varieties crop at different intervals after maturity/ripening of each variety. Under such circumstances, the self serving statement of the complainant that he suffered loss of Rs.20,000/- for acre does not inspire any confidence. However, at the same time this fact cannot be lost sight of that the complainant must have suffered some loss on account of uneven ripening of the paddy crop in his fields. So, looking into all the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable and justified to assess the approximate loss as Rs.4000/- for acre, for five acres, planted by the complainant from the seed purchased from the Opposite Party No.1. Admittedly, the said seed was packed for sale by the Opposite Party No.2.

11. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to make the payment of Rs.20000/- to the complainant as loss suffered by him on account of mixed varieties of seed supplied to him by the Opposite Parties. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Parties shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:05.01.2016

(K.C.Sharma)

President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )

Member.