Haryana

Ambala

CC/25/2012

LAKHMIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S THIRTH RAM MEHAR CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

DHARAM SINGH

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 25 of 2012

                                                          Date of Institution         : 23.01.2012

                                                          Date of decision   : 16.12.2016

 

 

           Lakhmir Singh S/o Sh. Nand Ram, age about 54 years, R/o Village         Hamayun Pur, P.O. Matheri Shekhan, Tehsil and District Ambala.

1. Arvinder Singh (Son)
2. Narmail Kaur (Wife)
3. Kamaljit Kaur (daughter)
4. Karamjir Kaur (daughter)
5. Rajwinder Kaur (daughter) of lakhmir Singh S/o Sh. Nand Ram, age about 54 years, R/o Village Hamayun Pur, P.O. Matheri Shakehan, Tehsil and District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

1.       M/s Tirth Ram Mehar Chand, Seed Merchants, Old Anaj Mandi, Ambala          City through its proprietor/Partner.

 

2.       Barwala Seed Farm, Near Bus Stand Barwala, District Panchkula, Haryana      through its proprietor Sh. Baldev Kumar S/o Sh. Satpal Sharma.                  

                                                                                                             Or    

          M/s Baldev Seeds, Near Bus Stand, Barwala, Tehsil and District Panchkula,     Haryana through its proprietor Sh. Baldev Kumar S/o Sh. Satpal Sharmam.

 ….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

Present:       Sh. Dharam Singh, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Rambir Singh, Adv. for OP no. 1.

                   OP no. 2 already exparte v.o.d. 24.01.2013.

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased 2 k.g. Carrot Seed from OP no. 1 on 01.09.2011 vide bill Annexure C-1 and assured by him that it was a good quality seed product of Op no. 2 and the complainant sowed the same in row method in four kanals of his agriculture land which was taken by him on the lease basis from one Harnek  Singh of adjoining village Bhanokheri. Further submitted that the crop was going to became ready for uprooting the same was not in usual condition and carrot has 5-6 branches which was not of a nominal condition. Further submitted that after approaching to Scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kendra at Ambala they visited the fields of complainant 23.12.2011 and produced his inspection report on 05.01.2012 in which the complainant had found that the seed provided by Ops was a poor and lower quality. Further submitted that due to lower and power quality of the seeds, the carrot in the field has forking disorder problem. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops no. 1 appeared and filed written statement submitting that the complainant purchased two kgs carrot seed from OP no. 1 but as per the norms of the Agriculture Department 4 kg of carrot seed was required to be sown for the so much land and the complainant purchased insufficient seeds for the purpose. Further submitted that the inspection of the fields of the complainant by Scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kendra at Ambala was not made in the presence of the OP no. 1. So, allege report is totally wrong and carrot seeds  were sold to the complainant of good quality. As such, there is no  deficiency in service on the part of OP.

3.                OP No.2 proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.01.2013.

4.                To prove his version complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A and CW2-A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-5 and close his evidence. OP no. 1 tendered his affidavit as Annexure R-X and R-Y alongwith documents Annexure R-1 and close his evidence.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the both the parties and carefully gone through the case file. Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased 2 kg. seeds of carrot from OP No.1 vide bill Annexure C-1 but OP No.1 did not issue bill on the original cash memo/bill book rather he has issued a bill on letter pad because he was very well known there was a problem in the seeds as the same were not certified as per section 9 of the Seeds Act. It has been argued that OP No.1 has not produced any invoice qua purchase of the said seed from Op No.2 manufacturer so, the said seeds were not of good quality and not certified by seed agency. In this way, OP no.1 has supplied the seeds of inferior quality and because of which complainant could not get the good yield and in the plant there were 5-6 branches of the carrot instead of one single carrot of one seed which can only be grown due to defect in the seeds in question and complainant has suffered a huge monetary loss. The act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

                   On the other hand, Op No.1 has argued that there is no doubt he has sold two kg. carrot seed to the complainant but the complainant  has not sown the carrot as per the norms of the Agriculture Department and  the counsel further argued that  the 4 kg. of carrot seeds were required to be sown for 4 kanals of land.  In this way, seed of carrot purchased by complainant was insufficient for the purpose of sowing in 4 kanals land and he further asserted that OP was not called at the time of alleged visit by the inspection committee constituted by Krishi Vigyan Kenter.  So, alleged report (Annexure C-2) dated 05.01.2012 has no value in the eyes of law. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 

6                 After perusal of the averments of the parties as well as documents placed on file, there are two points are involved in this case:-

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs or not?
2. If deficiency in service on the part of Ops is proved then to what extent, the complainant is entitled for compensation?

                   It is clear from the averments of the complainant that he has claimed that OP No.2 is manufacturer of the seed in question but there is no evidence on file that  OP No.2 is manufacturer of the seeds in question because OP No.1  has failed to place any bill or invoice qua the purchase of the seeds. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the manufacture OPNo.2 is not involved in this case in any manner. So, we dismiss the complaint against the Op No.2.

7.                Now question arises whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  Since OP No.1 has admitted the sale of seed in question to the complainant and the complainant has placed on file inspection report dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure C-2 as well as photographs of sowing carrots Annexure                 C-3) given by Inspection Committee constituted by KVK. It is clear from the above said documents there are 5-6 branches of the carrot instead of one single carrot of one seed which can only be grown to defect in the seed in question. Meaning thereby, OP no.1 has sold poor quality seed to the complainant, in this way, there is great deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and he is indulged in unfair trade practice to provide the defective seed to the complainant.                          The complainant has proved the factum that he has sown the carrot seed in 4 kanals, he has placed on record Khasra Girdawari  for the “relevant period i.e. Kharif 2011 to Rabi 2012” whereby carrot in 2 bighas (which is equal of 4 Kanals) have been sown in the land of Harnek Singh as per affidavit (Annexure CW2/A) from whom complainant has taken the land on lease. The khasra girdawari being a public document is trustworthy and reliable document.

                   Now coming to the point of compensation, the complainant has claimed that there can be 50 quintal yield in 4 kanals. To prove this factum, during the course of arguments complainant has placed one page of regarding yield of one acre about 100 to 110 quintals but this document cannot be relied upon as the same is not certified from the Agriculture Department.  Taking the average crops, we presume that seed were upto mark, the complainant must have took at least 40 quintal carrot in 4 kanals of land. It is also presumed that complainant must have sold the grown crops at least 5/- per one Kg. So, value of carrot comes to Rs.20,000/- taking the overall value of the crop in question. Since, OP No.1 did not issue the regular bill to the complainant it is clear that Op no.1 indulged in unfair trade practice   and OP No.1 is supposed to issue the bill of purchase for every sale so to put restrain every such type  practice adopted by Op No.1 should be checked. So, this Forum direct Op No.1 to deposit  Rs.10000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund as punitive damages as per Section 14 (d) in the Consumer Protection Act and he is warned to remain more careful in future and it is expected from him that he will not make any sale without any regular bill. So we hold that the OP no. 1 is also liable to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) as compensation alongwith cost.

5.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      The Op no. 1 is directed to pay a sum                                                        Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant within                                             stipulated period mentioned above, in case                                                of failure, the Ops will pay the interest to the                                       complainant for the awarded amount at the                                                rate of 12% per annum form the date of                                        complaint till its realization and

(ii)     Also to deposited Rs.10000/- (Rs. Ten                                             Thousand) in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund                                              as punitive damages as per Section 14 (d) in                                              the Consumer Protection Act

(iii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs.2200/- as cost of                                        mental harassment and litigation charges.  

                    Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :16.12.2016                                                Sd/-

                                                                                 (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                                                                                Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member