Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/57/2015

Sukhpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Manohar Lal - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R.S.Somal

16 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.57 of 2015

                                                    Date of institution : 01/07/2015                               

                                                      Date of decision    : 16.06.2017

Sukhpreet Singh son of Balwinder Singh resident of village and Post office Badouchhi Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Manohar Lal Aggarwal and Sons, Bassi Road, Near SBOP, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. R.K. Fertilizers Agency, Phase-II, New Grain Market, Sirhind Road, Patiala, Tehsil and District Patiala.
3. Karnal Seeds Corporation, Pattran, District Patiala, Punjab.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                               

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                            

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh. R.S.Somal, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.     

                      Sh. Naveen Behl, Adv.Cl. for OP No.1.

                      None for OPs No. 2 & 3.

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Sukhpreet Singh son of Balwinder Singh resident of village and Post office Badouchhi Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased 20 Kg. paddy seeds of category PB-1401 on 10.05.2014, vide bill No. 1587 from OP No.1. The OP gave guarantee to the complainant that the said paddy seeds are pure and free from any type of defects. After four-five months, when paddy crop was ready to reap, the complainant noticed that the said crop is not of pure quality and there were mixture of some other crops. The complainant approached the OP to address his grievances and made several requests for compensating him for the loss caused by unfair trade practice of OP. But OP did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant. Thereafter, on 16.10.2014 the complainant moved an application to Chief Agricultural Officer Fatehgarh Sahib. The Agricultural Officer, Sirhind investigated the matter and reached to the conclusion that the said seeds PB-1401 are contaminated and mixed with Seeds No.1509 and 1121 of Basmati. Due to mixture of seeds, some crop was ready to reap earlier than the other and due to such untimely readiness of the crop, the complainant could not reap all the crops simultaneously and resultantly got lesser yield. Mixture of seeds also gave poor quality of crop, due to which the complainant could not get appropriate rates of his crops and thus suffered financial loss.  The complainant so many times requested the OP to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as financial loss but the OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other and did not pay heed to the genuine requests of the complainant. The complainant also served a legal notice on the OP but all in vain. The act and conduct of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for financial loss, Rs.1,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment/mental pain and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of unwanted litigation.
3.           Notice of the complaint was issued to OP No.1, who appeared through counsel and later on filed an application for impleading OPs No.2 & 3 as parties to the present complaint. The application was allowed, vide order dated 16.09.2015, and OPs No.2 & 3 were impleaded as Opposite parties to the present complaint. OPs No. 2 & 3 appeared through counsel but later on they failed to appear and also failed to file written version despite so many opportunities. Hence, their right to file the written version was struck off.
4.           In reply to the complaint, OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is just misuse and abuse of law and complainant has concealed the true, relevant and material facts from this Forum. As regards the facts of the complaint, OP No.1 stated that the complainant purchased the seeds in  question as per his choice and on his demand, the OP sold the same to him. The complainant never approached OP No.1 to redress his grievances. It is further stated that on the application moved by the complainant to Chief Agriculture Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib, OP No.1 was called and  was heard by the competent authority and the manufacturer, OP No.3, of said seeds was also called.  It is further stated that OP No.1 purchased the said seeds in sealed bags of 10 Kg each from OP No.2, who is a dealer of seeds in question. OP No.1 kept the said stock so purchased from OP No.2 intact and further sold two bags of 10 Kg each to the complainant in the same condition as purchased from OP No.2. OP No.1 has no concern with the mixture and quality of said seeds. If there is any deficiency or unfair trade practice, the same is on the part of OPs No.2 & 3. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.
5.           In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, true copies of documents i.e. bill dated 10.05.2014 Ex. C-2, bill dated 15.11.2014 Ex. C-3, application dated 16.10.2014 Ex. C-4, report dated 18.02.2015 Ex. C-5, letter dated 23.02.2015 Ex. C-6, legal notice dated 10.04.2015 Ex. C-7, original postal receipts Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Manohar Lal, Ex. OP1/1 and closed the evidence.  OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Vivek Kumar, proprietor, as Ex. OP2/1 and closed the evidence. OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhbir Singh, Proprietor, Ex. OP3/1 and true copies of documents Ex. OP3/2 to OP3/33 and closed the evidence.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the OPs supplied low quality seeds and the same was confirmed by the Chief Agricultural Officer Fatehgarh Sahib. He stated that Agricultural Officer, Sirhind investigated the matter and reached to the conclusion that the said seeds PB-1401 are contaminated and mixed with Seeds No.1509 and 1121 of Basmati.
7.           On the other hand, Learned counsel for  OP No.1 submitted that OP No.1 joined the investigation. He further stated that OP No.1 kept the said stock so purchased from OP No.2 intact and further sold two bags of 10 Kg each to the complainant in the same condition as purchased from OP No.2. He pleaded that OP No.1 has no concern with the mixture or quality of said seeds and prayed for dismissal of the present complainant qua OP No.1.
8.           After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find force in the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the complainant. It is proved from the report and investigation by the Agricultural Officer, Sirhind dated 18.02.2015(Ex. C-5). It is established that due to the poor quality of seeds/crop, the complainant could not get appropriate rate of his crops and suffered financial loss. We are of the opinion that OP No.3 –Manufacturer has indulged in unfair trade practice by supplying poor quality of seeds.

9.         Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion and the report of Agricultural Officer, Sirhind it is established that complainant faced financial loss. Due to the conduct of the Manufacturer complainant had to undergo mental as well as physical harassment. Hence we direct the OP No.3 i.e. Manufacturer to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of compensation and Rs.5000/- litigation cost. The compensation and the costs be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. If the orders are not complied within the stipulate period, it shall carry 9% interest p.a. till its realization. The complaint is stands accepted.

10.          The arguments on the complaint were heard on 02.06.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:16.06.2017

  (A.P.S.Rajput)      

    President

 

(Inder Jit)          

  Member