BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.86 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 27.03.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:29.07.2019.

Deepak S/o Sh. Ghyasu Ram, R/o Kolekhan, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1.M/s. Pawan Kumar Sanjay Kumar, Commission Agent, Grain Market, Kalayat.

2. M/s. Shri Ram Company BG-II, 6588, Plot No.234, B-Block, Phase-II, Opp. Madhapur, Police Station Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad, Tellangana-500033.

….Respondents.

Before:      Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

                Smt. Suman Rana, Member.

Present:     Sh. Naranjan Dhull, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Balbir Bansal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Op No.2 exparte.

ORDER

D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant purchased Shri Ram (6588) BGII (in packing of 4 Kg. each) total 4 packets in total sum of Rs.2880/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.00426 dt. 13.05.2017.  It is alleged that the complainant duly sown the said cotton seeds in 3 acres land and he spent huge money on cultivation, sowing and pesticide but when the flowering was started on the cotton crops, there was no flowering upto the 3 feet height of cotton tree and there was only flowering on the top portion of the cotton tree.  The complainant approached the Deputy Agriculture Officer, Kaithal and the team of Agriculture Office inspected the fields of complainant and submitted a report that the cotton crop cultivated by the complainant was damaged upto 25-35%.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Hence, this complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 17.01.2019.  Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant does not fall under the purview of consumer as per provision of Section 2(1)(d) of C.P.Act because the complainant has purchased the cotton seeds for the commercial purpose for earning profits; that the compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of C.P.Act, 1986 has not been complied with in the present case; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the Civil Court is the best remedy; there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Undisputedly, the complainant purchased the cotton seed in question for sum of Rs.2880/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.00426 dt. 13.05.2017 Ex.C6.  According to the complainant, he duly sown the said cotton seeds in 3 acres land and he spent huge money on cultivation, sowing and pesticide but when the flowering was started on the cotton crops, there was no flowering upto the 3 feet height of cotton tree and there was only flowering on the top portion of the cotton tree.  The complainant has placed on file copy of inspection report of the Committee of Agriculture Department Ex.C7.  The Committee inspected the crop in 3 acres of the complainant and after inspection, it is reported by the inspection committee that there was damage upto 25-30% in the cotton crop cultivated by the complainant.

7.             The contention of OP No.1 that the complainant has not got tested the seed from any laboratory and he has not complied with the provision of Section 13(1))(c) of C.P.Act, 1986 has no force, because in the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed, nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. In this context, we can rely upon the authority reported as M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and others, 2012(1) ACJ page 265 (SC).  The Ops have failed to produce any evidence which could prove that the cotton seed sold to the complainant was certified and duly tested by any agency from the lab before selling the same to the complainant.  The authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the Op No.1 cited in CPC 1993 page 530 titled as Jasdev Singh Vs. The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Ambala & another page 530 (State Commission Haryana); 1995(1) CPJ page 162 titled as M.V.Arunachalam Vs. Vellore Anjappa Mudaliar & another (NC); 1997(2) CPC page 304 titled as The Haryana Land Reclamation Development Corporation Vs. Shamsher Singh alias Sher Singh and others (State Commission Haryana) and 2000(1) CPC page 365 titled as Suresh Kumar Vs. Haryana State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. (State Commission Haryana) are not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs have sold substandard seed to the complainant. Hence, the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

8.             Now we come to the relief that how much compensation or loss which the complainant is entitled for.  The complainant has failed to produce on file the rate of cotton at the time of damage and he also did not produce any evidence that how much yield of cotton crop in 1 acre.  The complainant has also not mentioned/alleged in this regard in the pleadings of the complaint.  In the circumstances of the case, in our view, the ends of justice will be met if we assess the yield of Rs.20,000/- per acre.  We have perused the inspection report Ex.C7 wherein the committee has assessed the loss about 25-30% in 3 acres.  In this way, the complainant is entitled for Rs.6,000/- per acre (Rs.20,000x30%) and the total loss comes to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.6,000/-x 3 acre).       

9.             Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OPs to pay Rs.6,000/- per acre (Rs.6,000/- x 3 acre) i.e. total amounting to Rs.18,000/- to the complainant.  The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. for the defaulted period.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:29.07.2019.  

                                                                        (D.N.Arora)

                                                                        President.

(Suman Rana),           (Rajbir Singh)         

Member                             Member.