Haryana

StateCommission

A/753/2018

KADIYAN SEEDS CORPORATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUKHTYAR SINGH AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN CHAUHAN

09 May 2023

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA Panchkula

 

Date of Instituion:30.05.2018                      

    Date of final hearing:09.05.2023

        Date of pronouncement:29.05.2023

                                                                    

 

FIRST APPEAL No.753 of 2018

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:                                       

 

Kadiyan Seeds Corporation, Katchwa Road, at Taraori, District Karnal through its proprietor Shri Ramesh Kadiyan.

 

                                                                                            .….Appellant

 

Through counsel Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.  Mukhtyar Singh son of Shri Bakhtawar Singh, R/o Village Bupania, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

….Respondent No.1

 

Through counsel Mr. Manoj Vashishtha & Mr. Deepak Baliyan, Advocates.

 

2.  Haryana Beej Bhandar, Jhajjar Road, near Shayied Baba, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, through its proprietor.

 

…..Respondent No.2

Through counsel Mr. Sumeet Gupta, Advocate

 

CORAM:    S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Parveen Chauhan, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Manoj Vashishtha & Mr. Deepak Baliyan, counsel for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sumeet Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

                  

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

 

                    The brief facts giving rise for disposal of the present case are that complainant purchased 60 Kgs of paddy raw seed i.e. PB-1509 for a sum of Rs.2700/- from the opposite party No.1 (“OP No.1”) and planted the sampling of paddy in his 11 acres of agriculture land. It was alleged that it was found that there were 50% of unwanted paddy plants in the aforesaid 11 acres of agriculture land. It was further alleged that Ops failed to compensate the complainant despite his best efforts and requests.

Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP No.1, upon it appeared and filed its written version by submitting therein that the complainant purchased 60 Kgs of paddy raw seeds from OP No.1 vide bill dated 17.05.2016. It was submitted that there was no 50% unwanted paddy plants in the fields of complainant and complainant never met with OP No.1 regarding the faulty/mixed seeds quality. It was further submitted that OP No.1 was not responsible for any kind of damage regarding poor and mixed quality of seeds and OP No.2 being manufacturer was only responsible to pay compensation as the warranty and guarantee was always with the manufacturer. It was further submitted that OP No.1  supplied the sealed original bags of paddy seeds which were supplied by the OP No.2. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against OP No.1.

3.                On the other hand, OP No.2 failed to appear before learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (Now ‘learned District Commission’) despite the fact that registered notice was sent to it and hence, OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2017.

4.               The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record, allowed the complainant vide order dated 05.04.2018 and directed the OP No.2 as under:-

“In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, it is observed that the respondent No.2 manufacturing company shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- per acre as compensation on account of loss suffered by him towards getting less growth of his paddy crop. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- from the respondent No.2 on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.”

 

5.                Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, Jhajjar, OP No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal before this Commission for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2018.

6.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Manoj Vashishtha alongwith Mr. Deepak Baliyan, Advocates, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Sumeet Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.2. With their kind assistance entire appeal & record has been properly perused and examined.

7.                It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 has purchased 60 Kgs of paddy seeds from the appellant vide bill dated 17.05.2016 worth Rs.2700/-.  It is not in dispute that SDO, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Bahadurgrh vide his report of inspection observed that there was found 45-47% mixture of another paddy seed in the standing paddy crop in the fields of complainant-respondent No.1. Thus, it was proved that the seeds purchased by respondent No.1-complainant from the appellant-OP No.2 was having mixture of another seeds, which effected the quality of crop and respondent No.1-complainant suffered the loss. On the other hand, as far as question of liability upon respondent No.2 (Haryana Beej Bhandar) is concerned, it is only a distributer, who sold the paddy seeds in a sealed pack manner.

8.                In view of the abovementioned facts, circumstances & discussion, this Commission does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, Jhajjar. Learned District Commission, Jhajjar rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law, there is no need to interfere with it. In view of this, present appeal stands dismissed.

9.                Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt, identification and as per rules.

10.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

 11.               Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 12.               File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 29^th May, 2023                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                            S.C. Kaushik                                                                                                                       Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 R.K