BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.670 of 2014
Date of institution: 21.11.2014
Date of Decision: 01.06.2015
Avtar Singh son of Rattan Singh, resident of village Pragpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Metro Biotech, Opposite Gurudwara Sahib, Ambala-Chandigarh Road, Bhankharpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Proprietor.
2. Nuzivedu Seeds, Survey No.69, Kandlakoya, Medchal Mandal, Gundlaponchampally Village, Rangarddy District, Andhra Pradesh PIN 501401 through its C.O.O.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Ranwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite Parties exparte.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’):
(a) to pay him Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum for mental agony and financial loss.
The complainant’s case is that he purchased two bags of sunflower seeds from OP No.1 vide cash memo dated 19.03.2014 Ex.C-1. The complainant sowed the seeds on 21.03.2014 but after few days the complainant found that the seeds have not germinated completely and most of the seeds remained under the earth without any germination. The complainant approached OP No.1 who did not pay any heed to his request. The complainant then filed an application on 09.04.2014 with the Block Agriculture Officer, Dera Bassi and a team of Agriculture Development Office, Dera Bassi and Agriculture Development Office, Amlala conducted the checking of the fields of the complainant. The team found that only 4.5% seeds have germinated and remaining seeds were lying under the earth without any germination. According to the team report the crop of the complainant had failed. The team conducted the search of the OP No.1 on 10.04.2014 and found that OP No.1 has purchased thirty bags of sunflower N.F.S.H. 36 Lot No.054450564 and it has not any license of OP No.2. In this way the complainant has suffered financial loss as well as mental agony and harassment.
2. The complainant has taken dasti summons for service upon the OPs. The summons was sent by registered post but the postal receipt was misplaced. None appeared for the OPs and they were proceeded against exparte on 30.12.2014.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-3.
4. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Consoritum Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Anjana Tyagi, 2013(3) CLT 570 by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) & another, 2008 (I) CLT 566, the OP were given three opportunities to rebut the evidence of the complainant. However, none appeared for them to rebut the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant.
6. Admittedly the complainant has purchased 2 bags of 2 kg. each of sunflower seeds from OP No.1 vide cash memo dated 19.03.2014 Ex.C-1 and a paid a total sum of Rs.1800/- @ Rs.900/- per bag. The complainant had sown the seeds in his twelve bighags of land but the seeds did not germinate completely and, therefore, suspecting the seeds to be defective he approached the Block Agriculture Officer, Dera Bassi vide application dated 09.04.2014 Ex.C-2 for conducting investigation. The officials of Agriculture Department conducted the investigation and found the seeds to be defective as only 4.5% seeds have germinated and the remaining were non alive, thus, caused financial loss to the complainant. The report of the Agriculture Department is Ex.C-3. So much so even the Block Agriculture Officer has recommended appropriate action against the manufacturer as well as the seller of the defective seeds. The complainant has tried to collect the action taken report from the appropriate authority under RTI Act, however, the same is awaited.
7. Once the appropriate authority has applied its mind after conducting the proper investigation and after due application of mind reached to a conclusion regarding the defective quality of seeds sold to the complainant, the report of authority as Ex.C-3 is the best evidence in the hands of the complainant and in any manner is relied upon fully by this Forum to declare the sale of defective seeds to the complainant by OP No.1 causing him financial loss and mental agony.
8. Thus, the complaint is allowed with the following direction to the OPs to :
(a) to refund him Rs.1,800/- (Rs. One thousand eight hundred only) being the sale price of the defective seed, with interest there on @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 19.03.2014 till realisation.
(b) to pay him Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs. One lac five thousand only) being the financial loss suffered by him due to non germination of seeds.
(c) to pay him a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
June 01, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
