| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 88 of 29.2.2016 Decided on: 17.2.2021 Ranjit Singh son of Sh.Mohind Singh, aged 47 years, resident of village Hassanpur, Tehsil and District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus M/s Supergold Karnal Seed Farm, Phase-II, Shop No.13, Main Dana Mandi, Patiala. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.A.S.Chahal, counsel for complainant. Sh.Gurmeet Singh, counsel for OP ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Ranjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against M/s Supergold Karnal Seed Farm (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s.
FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT - Briefly the case of the complainant is that he purchased 10 kg of variety seeds of rice Mussal (Pusa) 1401 Basmati for an amount of Rs.2400/- from the OP and sown the same in his fields for preparing ‘paniri’ to be transplanted in six acres of agricultural land. The complainant transplanted the paddy crop in his fields but he was shocked when he found that the seeds were of mixed variety. He made complaint to the OP. He also filed an application before the District Agriculture Officer, Patiala who deputed an expert to visit the spot. The expert visited the spot and found that the paddy crop, transplanted by the complainant was of mixed variety and submitted the report to his officer. Thereafter the complainant again met the proprietor of the OP but the OP paid no heed to his request. As such the complainant suffered monetary loss to the tune of Rs.2.50lac. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused irreparable loss to the complainant
- Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to pay Rs.5lac as compensation alongwith interest @18% per annum due to expenses incurred on cultivation, irrigation, insecticides, labour, fertilizers, lesser production of crop as well as for harassment, mental agony and tension.
REPLY/WRRITEN STATEMENT - Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer ; that complicated questions of law and facts are involved as such the complaint is to be tried by the civil court; that the complaint is filed just to blackmail the OP; that the seeds in question were of good quality; that the report is false and frivolous and that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct.
- On merits, it is admitted that the OP is doing the business of selling seeds of various crops and are always supplying good and approved quality of seeds. It is averred that yield of crop depends upon many factors like quality of soil, water, fertilizers and insecticides used in the crop, control of nadeen , care of land and crop, stagnation of water etc.It is further averred that the complainant may not have used the seeds supplied to him. It is further averred that no intimation with regard to the visiting of spot by agriculture officer was given to the OP.The seeds sold to the complainant were of good quality. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP.After denying all other averments, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB affidavit of Ajaib Singh alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C15 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Kumar Garg alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP7 and closed the evidence.
- The OP has also filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS - The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP is selling the seeds of various crops to the customers. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant has purchased seeds of Basmati 1401 for Rs.2400/-.The ld. counsel further argued that the seeds were sown and were transplanted in six acres of land. The ld. counsel further argued that when the seeds were purchased the same was of mixed variety and resulted loss as the complainant was not able to get a bumper crop. The ld. counsel further argued that the paddy crop was found to be of mixed variety and as per the report there was mixture in the seeds. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant has suffered monetary loss of Rs.2.50.000/-.So the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the complaint has been filed on flimsy grounds as the complainant is not a consumer and the matter should be tried by the civil court. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no documentary evidence on the file to prove that the complainant has suffered the loss, so the complaint be dismissed. The ld. counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Vs. Garapati Srinivas & Anr. 1(2014)CPJ 538 (NC).
- To prove this case, complainant Ranjit Singh has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint. Ex.CB is the affidavit of Ajaib Singh and he has supported the claim of the complainant, Ex.C1 is the bill dated 7.5.2015 of the OP in favour of Ranjit Singh of pusa. As per this bill four bags of 10kg of total 40 kg were supplied and amount of Rs.2400/-was taken. Ex.C2 is the letter written to Agricultural officer, Patiala dated 16.10.2015,Ex.C3 is the report in which it is mentioned that there was adulteration of 1% in the seeds. Ex.C4 is letter to complainant from Agricultural Officer, Patiala, in which it is mentioned that the report is sent to him and he can pursue the matter in the Consumer Court,Ex.C5 to C8 are the photographs, Ex.C9 is the J Form, in which the amount per quintal Rs.2410/- is mentioned, remaining Exs.C10 to Ex.C15 are also J Forms but these are not of Pusa Basmati.
- On the other hand, Sh.Rajinder Kumar Garg has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per his written statement, Ex.OP1 is the licence of the OP, Ex.OP2 is the receipt, Ex.OP3 is another receipt,Exs.OP4 to OP7 are also the receipts.
- As per the allegations of the complainant, defective seeds were supplied to him and he suffered a loss of Rs.2.50.000/-.The complainant has proved on the file the bill vide which he has purchased 40 kgs of seeds. As per the CAU guidelines 8 kgs of seeds is required in one acre of land, so these seeds were purchased for five acre of land. The complaint was filed with Agricultural Officer, Patiala to check the seeds and in their report it is mentioned that there was 1% mixture in the seeds and as per the letter,Ex.C4 sent by Chief Agricultural officer to the complainant., report was sent to him and he was directed to pursue the matter before the Consumer Court..The J Form is Ex.C9 vide which the crop was sold on 21.11.2015 for Rs.1,07,200/- @ Rs.2410/-.There is report of Basmati Expert Development Board on the file and as per the report the per ha/qtl gross income from Pusa Basmati is Rs.79,200 i.e. per 2 ½ acre and taking into consideration that the seeds which the complainant had purchased was for five acre i.e. 2 hectre and total amount would come to Rs.158400/-.As per the J form on the file the complainant sold his crop for Rs.1,08,450, so he has suffered loss Rs.49,950/- due to adulteration and as per the report of Chief Agricultural Officer, that there was mixture of seeds. No report in rebuttal was produced by the OP to prove that there was no mixture in the seeds.
- So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the complainant is entitled to Rs.49,950/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the filing of this complaint i.e.29.2.2016 till realization. The complainant is also held entitled to Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.5000/-as costs of litigation. The OP is directed to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:17.2.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
