Haryana

Karnal

CC/247/2015

Amrik Singh S/o Arud Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shiv Agro Chemical & Fertilizer - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.247 of 2015

                                                         Date of instt. 12.10.2015

                                                         Date of decision:16.2.2018

 

Amrik Singh son of Shri Arud Singh resident of village Asandh Dera Kaithal Road Tehsil Asandh District Karnal Mobile no.9813155754    .                                                                                                                                                                                                       …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. M/s Shiv Agro Chemicals & Fertilizers Proprietor Ashok Sharma near Police Station Asandh District Karnal Mobile no.9996068969.

2. M/s Newzi Vidu Seeds NSL Icon Rd no.12, Banjara Hills Hyderabad District Telangana.

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Shri Jagmal Singh……President.

              Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

 Present   Complainant in person

                Opposite party no.1 exparte.

                Shri Pawan Goyal Advocate for OP no.2.

                       

ORDER:                    

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant has purchased 25 Kgs of paddy seeds for Rs.2500/- from the OP no.1, vide bill no.2613 dated 22.6.2015. The said seed was planted in 6 acres of land.  When the paddy crop was grown it was found that there was mixed plants which were approximately 43.9%. Due to mixing of seed, crop of 6 acres of land was destroyed and he suffered loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. Complainant moved an application before the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal to inspect the agriculture land of the complainant and to report about the loss. Thereafter, the officials of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee and the committee visited the fields of the complainant on 26.9.2015 and inspected the paddy crop and observed that there was 43.9% off type/other variety plants, which were in grain formation/tall/dwarf/panicle formation stage. It is pertinent to mention here that the seeds provided by the OPs to the complainant were of inferior quality and due to this, the complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 13.1.2016.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; complainant has not sent the seed for testing to the laboratory; no deficiency in service and complaint is an abuse of process of law. On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant had sown seed of company of OP over his six acres of land. It is denied that percentage of yield is only 46.1%. The seed manufactured by OP no.2 was not mixed one. It is also denied that due to mixing of seed, the crop in six acres land of complainant got destroyed and complainant suffered loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is further submitted that complainant did not supply any documents to the OP no.2, regarding the receipts as well as report of the alleged technical committee and other relevant document and information pertaining to the land of the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant failed to retain the sample of the crop for getting tested in the Government Lab so that it can be ascertained that there is any defect in the seed. The sample of this seed was also not got tested by the complainant as per the mandatory provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 3.7.2017.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Chahal Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 19.12.2017.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             From the pleading and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant had purchased 25 Kgs of paddy seeds for Rs.2500/- from the OP no.1, vide bill no.2613 dated 22.6.2015, the copy of which is Ex.C2. The said seed was planted in 6 acres of land. When the crop grew up he found that there were mixed plants of the paddy crop. Complainant moved an application before the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal to inspect his agriculture land. Thereafter, the officials of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee and the committee visited the fields of the complainant on 26.9.2015 and inspected the paddy crop and observed vide its report Ex.C4 that there was 43.9% off type/other variety plants, which were in grain formation/tall/dwarf/panicle formation stage. In support of his version complainant filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C2 and inspection report Ex.C4.

8.             OPs contended that complainant failed to retain the sample of the crop for getting tested in the Government Lab so that it can be ascertained that there is any defect in the seed. The sample of this seed was also not got tested by the complainant as per the mandatory provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. 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 because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. On the other hand, the OPs have not placed any report, vide which the seed in question was got tested by them that the same was of standard quality. So, the contention of opposite parties regarding compliance of the provision of section 13(1)© of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has no force. In this context , we can rely upon the authority reported as M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Versus M.Madhusudhan Reddy and others, 2012(1) ACJ page 265 (SC) the facts of this authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

9.             In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the seed supplied by the OPs were not of good quality rather the same was substandard. According to the complainant due to mixing of seed, crop of 6 acres of land was destroyed and he suffered loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. To prove this fact that the crop of 6 acres was destroyed, the complainant has not produced any evidence. No doubt the complainant might have suffered loss due to mixing of the seed, so the opposite parties are bound to compensate him, as the loss was suffered due to supply of substandard seed. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice will be met if we allow the compensation to the tune of Rs.9000/- per acre to the complainant which comes to Rs.54000/- for the crop of six acres.

10.           As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.54,000/- to the complainant as compensation and to refund Rs.2500/- the cost of the seed. We further direct OPs to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the abovesaid amount will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.02.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Anil Sharma)

                            Member