BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:116 of 2017. Date of Instt.: 02.06.2017.
Date of Order: 12.02.2018.
Jagjit Singh son of Sham Singh Caste Rai Sikh resident of village Thedi, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Punjab Beej Company, 38-39 Shivalya Market, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Proprietor.
- M/s Jagdish Store, D-1, Tilak Bazar, Hisar District Hisar through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory
…Respondents/OPs
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Mrs.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.V.K. Mehta Advocate for OpNo.1
OP No. 2 already ex-parte.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that the complainant purchased Moong seed from the Shop of OP No.1 vide Bill No.11076 on 21.04.2016 and a payment of Rs.1500/- was made to OP No.1 by the complainant in cash and as such he is consumer of OPs.
2. It is further submitted that the above said seed was sown by the complainant in his one and a half acre of agriculture land .The seed was sown as per instructions issued by the OPs. It is further averred that due to mixture in the seeds, the complainant could get 10% of the expected total yield. There was a mixture in 90% of the seed and as such the whole crop of the complainant was spoiled. He spent Rs.10000/- on fertilizer and sprays.
3. Thereafter the complainant visited the shop of OPs regarding selling of duplicate seed then OP No.1 replied that he will compensate the complainant at the time of sowing of Narma Crop by providing him free Narma seed but later on he did not adhere with his promise and refused to do so. So, the complainant got his crop inspected from the experts/ specialists of Agriculture Department, Punjab, they inspected the spot and gave their report which is enclosed with this complaint. It is further submitted that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.30,000/- on account of inferior and sub-standard seed supplied by the OPs. Hence, the present complaint.
4. OP No.1 appeared through counsel and resisted the complaint by taking preliminary objections of jurisdiction, cause of action, concealments of material facts, locus standi, maintainability and that present complaint has been filed only to harass the answering Op to grab money. It is further submitted that the seed in question was purchased by him from M/s Jagdish Store D-1, Tilak Bazar, Hisar (Haryana), the present complaint is bad for non- joinder of necessary party.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the seed in question was purchased by the complainant from Op no.1. It is further submitted that there is no proof that the complainant had sown the seed as per instructions and precautions. It is further submitted that the complainant has not mentioned the Kila numbers of land in which the seed was sown and in how much land. Further, it is submitted that no prior notice was given by the Agriculture Department before inspection of the land in question and they did not follow the instructions issued vide memo No.52-70 PKL dated 3.1.2012 so the above said inspection report cannot be relied upon. All other allegations have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
6. On filing of an application on behalf of Op N o.1, The Firm Jagdish Store was allowed to be impleaded as Op No.2 vide order dated 21.8.2017. But none has come present on behalf of OP No.2 despite issuance of proper process and ultimately Op No.2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dt.25.9.2017.
7. In evidence the complainant placed on record his affidavit as Annexure C1 along-with another affidavit Annexure C8 anddocuments as Annexure C2 to C7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Op No.2 in its evidence tendered affidavit/documents Annexure R1 to R5 and closed the same.
8. We have heard the complainant in person & learned counsel for the OP and also examined all the entire material placed on record.
9. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased Moong seed from the OP No.1 on 21.04.2016 for payment of Rs.1500/-. Op no.2 is the manufacturer of Moong seed in question. It is further the case of the complainant that the seed in question was inferior, duplicate, sub-standard and not as per assurance given by Op no.1. To prove its case the complainant placed on record his affidavit as Annexure C1 in evidence wherein the averments made by him in the complaint have been reaffirmed. The complainant also produced cash memo Annexure C7 to establish that he purchased the seed in question from Op no.1 by making a payment of Rs.1500/-. From Annexure C2 i.e. Inspection Report it is also revealed that the agriculture land wherein the seed in question was sown was inspected by the team of Scientists and Expert of Agriculture Department, Mansa(Punjab) on 24.08.2016. Vide the inspection report dated 24.08.2016 the team of experts opined that the Moong plants grown in the field of complainant were not of the same height i.e. 25% were of small height, 25% were of medium height and 50% were of more height. It is also opined that quantity of fruits was very poor on the plants. It is also further opined that from inspection of the field it was evident that the seed was of different varieties.
10. From perusal of Annexure C6 i.e. copy of Jamabandi it is evident that the complainant is co-sharer along-with other co-sharers to the extent of 1/48 share in the land in question. The version of the complainant also finds support from the affidavit tendered by one Sh.Nirwair Singh neighbourer of the complainant regarding purchase of Moong seed as well as crop damaged due to mixed seeds and of inferior quality.
11. It is very clear from the inspection report dated 24.08.2016 made by the agricultural experts that the complainant has been able to create a high degree of probability of deficiency on the part of OPs in supplying the seed to the complainant. Therefore onus of proof shifted to the OPs to prove that seed manufactured by them were free from any defect. Reliance is placed on case titled as A Raghavamma & Anr. Vs. A.Chenchamma & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 136 a three judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a complainant is able to create a high degree of probability of deficiency on the part of the opposite party, the onus would shift on to the opposite party (the defendant) to discharge the onus to prove his denial. The OPs have not produced any evidence or certificate of the competent authority to prove that the seed sold to the complainant were free from any defect. The OPs could have very well produced their own technical experts to prove that there was nothing wrong with the quality of seed produced by them. In the absence of same the report of agricultural experts dated 15.09.2017 has to be relied upon. Moreover the members of team of experts are officers of the Government and have no interest involved in the matter. Therefore their report cannot be brushed aside in absence of any contrary opinion of approved laboratory. We thus hold that report dated 15.09.2017 of the team of experts can be very well read in evidence. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Dharam Pal & Sons and others Vs. Som Parkash II (2014) CPJ 703 (NC) wherein it has been held that Seeds-Defects Loss suffered-Inspection of field-Deficiency in service-Unfair trade practice- District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission dismissed appeal- Hence, revision- As per report complainant had suffered loss in his paddy crop to the extent of 50 % on account of substandard quality of seeds sold to by him OPs. There is nothing to lable it as any ill-will by members of joint inspection team and seller of seed-Deficiency proved-Compensation awarded.
12. Op No.1 in its reply has taken the plea that the seed in question purchased by him from Op No.2 was directly sold to the complainant. However the OP No.2 did not bother to appear before the Forum to file any reply to the present complaint
13. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OP No.2 in selling inferior quality of Moong seed to him as he was manufacturer of the seed in question and Op no.1 had sold the same in packed condition to the complainant. So, the complaint qua Op No.1 is dismissed.
14. Regarding quantum of financial loss we are of the considered opinion in the prayer, the complainant has submitted that he has suffered a loss of Rs.30000/- due to mixed and inferior quality of the moong seeds provided by the Op and contrary to this, the Ops has stated nothing. So, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Hence, Op No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.30000/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant along-with a compensation of Rs.10000/- on account of mental tension, agony, physical harassment and litigation charges. The present complaint is accordingly disposed of. The compliance of this order shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order otherwise the awarded amount of Rs.30000/- shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM
Dt.12.02.2018.
(Raghbir Singh)
President
(R.S.Panghal) Member
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
