BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 254 of 2016
Date of Institution : 27.9.2016
Date of Decision : 28.7.2017
Bohar Singh son of Sh. Jagroop Singh, resident of village Bharolianwali, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
M/s Radha Kishan Krishan Kumar, Main Bazar Rania, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa through its Prop/ Partner/ Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Purshotam Phutela, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
Case of complainant Bohar Singh, is that he is an agriculturist. On 3.5.2016, he had purchased 110 Kg. PB-6 (1401) R/s Golden seeds lot 08 at the rate of Rs.60/- and 20 Kg. PB-1 C/S Golden seeds lot 02 at the rate of Rs.50/- & hybrid for the amount of Rs.2100/-, hence the complainant paid total amount of Rs.9700/- to the opposite party vide bill No.418 dated 3.5.2016. The complainant purchased the said paddy seed from the opposite party after every type of assurance given by op about the quality of seed. The complainant sowed the said seed in 43 acres of land as per direction of the op and also followed every directions and guidance of op but the crop did not gain growth and did not give any fruit. The crop of the complainant also suffered with disease whereas the crop of the neighbourer is very good and is growing very well. Then complainant came to know that op had given him duplicate seed/ other quality and misbranded seed. The complainant alongwith Sh. Pal Singh son of Malkit Singh, resident of village Bharolianwali, District Sirsa immediately met with the op and told him about his loss but the op did not hear the complainant and started to threat the complainant that he cannot do anything. That thereafter the complainant filed a complaint to the Agriculture Department, Sirsa and requested to get inspection of his fields but till today they have not inspected the spot and are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. That due to duplicate seed, the complainant has suffered 100% loss of his crop and in terms of money same is Rs.25 lacs. The complainant had also spent an amount of Rs.one lac on sowing/ watering/ labour etc. The complainant also suffered mental pain, agony, disappointment and harassment due to act and deficiency in service of the opposite party, hence, he is also entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.18 lacs as loss of crop, Rs.one lac as expenses spent upon the crop, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.8,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed reply On notice, opposite party appeared and filed reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint in hand is not maintainable in its present form as no defect in the seed is proved in the present complaint. The complainant failed to produce on file any inspection report from the officials of the Agriculture Department, as such in the absence of any report of the analyst the complaint carries no legal value and the allegations of the complainant are prima facie baseless, defective and cannot be used against the op as there is no any kind of deficiency or unfair trade practice on his part. That complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as the complainant failed to even explain the square number and killa numbers of the land where the alleged seeds have been sowed by the complainant. Thus, the alleged complaint does not pin point the identity of the land. The non mentioning of specific kill number and khasra number as explained above is a serious defect in the complaint, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone; that the complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of parties as the manufacturing company has not been impleaded as party; that complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and that complainant has concealed and suppressed the true and material facts from the Forum and has not come with clean hands, as such the complainant is not entitled to any relief. It has been further submitted that the variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed but it may be due to other factor including water quality, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moister content at the sowing time and soil physical condition. These principles are applicable to the case in hand and the complainant has not stated anything about these things in the present complaint. It was necessary on the part of the complainant to adopt all the agricultural operations given on the leaflet/ broacher of the seeds which was provided inside the seed packet to the farmers. The complainant himself is responsible for adopting wrong cultivating practice which was not recommended by the op. On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has also been submitted that answering op has only marketed the seeds in the duly packed condition as is received from the manufacturing company, hence the answering op is not liable for any alleged loss to the crop of the complainant. All other contents of the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of aadhar card Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 1.12.2016 of Deputy Agriculture Officer Ex.C4, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C5, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C6, copy of statement of Smt. Amanjot Kaur Ex.C7 and copy of statement of Jasvir Singh Ex.C8. On the other hand, op produced affidavit Ex.R1.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant has placed on record copy of inspection report dated 3.11.2016 conducted by officers of Agriculture Department, Sirsa alongwith letter of Deputy Agriculture Officer bearing No.7263 dated 1.12.2016 Ex.C4. It is mentioned in the said inspection report that on 3.11.2016 the members of the constituted committee Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Quality Control Inspector, Sirsa, Sh. Vijender Chauhan, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Sh. Subhash Chander, Subject Specialist Agro, Sirsa and representative of the firm Shri Krishan Kumar son of Shri Radha Krishan i.e. opposite party inspected the field of the complainant in his presence. At the time of inspection, no representative on behalf of the company came present. The farmer told that after purchasing 110 Kgs. paddy seed quality PB-6 from firm M/s Radha Krishan Krishan Kumar, Main Bazaar, Rania, he sowed the seed in total 30 acres of agricultural land and due to mixed quality of seed he has suffered loss. During the joint inspection by them, they selected total five places of 5x5m. (plots) randomly and then they counted the plants of other quality found in these places which were different from the plants of main crop and their length, sizes of leaves and size of seed was different from the plants of main crop and after counting these plants, total average was drawn which was found 1.5 to 2.0% and in this way due to mixture of non paddy seed in the paddy seed in total 30 acres of land, the complainant has suffered loss of quality in the yield. The said inspection report bears the signatures of all the above said officers. So, in the present case the matter relates to loss of paddy crop in 30 acres due to supply of mixed quality of seed quality PB-6 (1401). The complainant in order to prove that he was cultivating the said 30 acres of agriculture land at the relevant time has placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C5 showing the ownership 19 acres of land of Smt. Amanjot Kaur wife of Sh. Simranjit Singh, resident of village Bharolianwali, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa and showing the ownership of 11 acres of land of Sh. Jasbir Singh (Kala) son of Sh. Bhag Singh, resident of village Bharolianwali from the complainant took total 30 acres of land on lease basis. The complainant has also placed on file copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C6 which shows that paddy crop was sowed in 30 acres of land belonging to Amanjot Kaur and Jasbir Singh. So, it is proved on record that complainant was cultivating 30 acres of agricultural land at the relevant time which was taken by him from Smt. Amanjot Kaur and Jasbir Singh on lease basis and he sowed paddy seed in 30 acres of land during the paddy crop season of 2016. The sale of paddy seed to the complainant by the opposite party is also not disputed and same is also proved vide bill dated 3.5.2016 Ex.C3.
6. The opposite party in his affidavit has stated that he was never given any notice or intimation about the alleged spot inspection nor the op was joined in the alleged spot inspection but this is not acceptable because it is very much mentioned in the inspection report that inspection was done in the presence of Shri Krishan Kumar son of Sh. Radha Krishan representative of firm i.e. opposite party. The objection of the opposite party regarding killa/ square number of the land in which said seed was allegedly sowed is also baseless because the complainant has placed on file copy of jamabandi and three experts had also visited the said land. The plea of the opposite party that manufacturing company has not been impleaded as party in the present case has also no merit because the opposite party has failed to tell the name of the manufacturing company. Moreover, the opposite party also could have moved an application for impleading the manufacturing company as a party but he has failed to do so.
7. Resultantly, it is proved to the hilt that there was some mixed/ other quality of seed in the paddy seed sold to the complainant by the opposite party on 3.5.2016.
8. Now, on the point of ascertaining damages, parties have led no evidence and, therefore, this Forum is left with its own wisdom to ascertain the damages. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the year 2016, the average income from the paddy crop in one acre was Rs.40,000/-. The complainant sowed paddy seed in 30 acres of the land and therefore, he was to earn total amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from 30 acres of land. The committee has given report that average of other quality of plants was 1.5 to 2.0%. Although, the complainant has claimed total loss of crop but he has not proved the same. We are of the considered view that at the time of sale of paddy crop, the complainant might have suffered consequential loss due to mixed quality of crop as at the time of sale of crop he would have received lower rate than the prescribed rate of crop due to mixed quality and would have suffered much loss. Thus, we assess the consequential loss of 20% of crop and in terms of money, we assess the same as Rs.2,00,000/- as lump sum amount including compensation.
9. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- in lump sum to the complainant for loss of his crop and compensation for harassment. The complainant is also hereby awarded Rs.5000/- for litigation expenses payable by the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to pay both these amounts within a period of one month, after the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite party will pay Rs.100/- per day as penalty to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:28.7.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
