Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/74

Gurdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nirankari Agri seeds Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vipin Kumar Tayal

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        74         

Date of Institution :   09.06.2015

Date of Decision :     29.01.2016

 

Gurdev Singh aged 50 years s/o Karnail Singh s/o Gajjan Singh r/o village Butter Sarhin Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Nirankari Agri Seeds Pvt Ltd Dabwali District Sirsa (Haryana) through its Proprietor/Partner/MD/Director/Authorised Person Ramesh Kumar s/o Hazari Lal.

2. Lakhvir Kheti Sewa Centre, Chaina Bazar, Jaitu District Faridkot through its Proprietor/Partner Lakhvir Singh.

......OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

               Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

   Sh A S Sekhon, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

   Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for OP-2.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs for selling defective substandard seeds and for seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs 2,50,000/- on account of loss in crop produce, Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental tension alongwith Rs 20,000/- for litigation expenses.

   2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist and OP-1 is the manufacturer of seeds and on assurance of OP-1, complainant purchased 60 Kgs of seeds of paddy-1121 for 10 acres of land vide bill no 563 dt 7.05.2014 for Rs 6000/- from OPs. OP -1 is the manufacturer of seeds and OP-2 is the dealer. Complainant has about 15 acres of family land and also took about 10 acres of land on lease from Bikkar Singh s/o Buta Singh in the same village and sew the said seeds on the 10 acres of land and prepared paneeri/nursery for the said seeds and while sowing the seeds, complainant prepared the land with utmost care according to the paddy crop of 1121 in the prescribed manner and after sowing seeds of 1121, he gave due care to the fields and used prescribed quantity of fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and other material for the development of agriculture and crop. After sowing the paneeri/seeds 1121, he has taken due care, but in the month of September when the plants grew up and took some length, complainant noticed that plants are of different varieties and are not of same kind i.e 1121 as assured by OP-1. 50% of total plants in the fields were of different varieties and deemed to be of paddy 1509, which was not purchased by the complainant for sowing the said field. Thus, OPs provided him inferior, mixed and adulterated quality of seeds. Complainant informed about this fact to OP-2 through whom he purchased seeds from OP-1, who informed regarding it to OP-1 and then OP-1 visited his fields and admitted that the seeds were of mixed quality and mistake was done on the part of OP-1. Complainant also reported the matter to Chief Agriculture Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib on 24.09.2014 and on application of complainant, concerned officer checked and inspected the field and made report dt 01.10.2014 and 28.11.2014, wherein they mentioned that 30 % of plants are of other variety and are not of paddy 1121 and are of mixed quality of seeds, which resulted in loss to complainant, as there was mixed quality of seeds grown in the same fields and as different varieties have different time of reaping and harvesting and need extra pesticides and care. OP-1 promised to give compensation but later on refused to admit the genuine claim of complainant. Complainant made many requests to Ops to accept his claim, but all in vain. It is further contended that OPs intentionally sold defective, substandard seeds to complainant in the garb of good and fertile seeds and defrauded the complainant due to which complainant has to face many problems and due to supply of defective/sub standard seeds by OPs, complainant has suffered huge loss, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for granting him compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for loss of crop alongwith Rs 1,00,000/-for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 20,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                               Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 12.06.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                   On receipt of the notice, the OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that both complainant and OP-2 are hand in glove with each other and complainant has filed the present complaint in connivance with OP-2 to harass OP-1 without any reasonable cause and is not maintainable in the present form. It is averred that complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties as OP-1 has nothing to do with the complainant as alleged seeds were not purchased from OP-1 and they have been wrongly impleaded in this complaint and it is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as complicated questions of law and facts are involved requiring voluminous evidence, which is not possible in summary proceedings and this case is to be decided by the Civil Court. It is asserted that alleged seeds were certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and necessary certificate to this effect is affixed and tagged on the bags. Detail of the seed certified is also given and physical verification of raw seeds is also issued, which clearly shows that the quality of seeds in question was PV-1121 of paddy, which was certified to be fit for use and approved by the Haryana Seed Certification Agency. It is averred that OP-2 is running a Kheti Sewa Centre at Jaitu, but they have miserably failed to prove that which seeds of paddy was purchased from answering OP and the same was delivered to the complainant and complainant has also sown the same quality i.e PV-1121 and complainant has also failed to prove that same seedling was transplanted by him in the fields. It is further averred that allegations levelled by complainant are not based on any scientific or laboratory tests and present complaint is an abuse of legal process. Complainant has not mentioned any particulars about the year or season and the date on which the alleged seeds were sown and has also not proved the proper germination of same. The seeds were of original and good quality and the genuine seeds duly approved by the Government are sold in open market after proper permission, proper licence and proper certification by the competent authorities and thus, there is no occasion that OP-1 supplied adulterated seeds. Ld counsel for OP-1 brought before the Forum that answering OP has business transactions with OP-2 and OP-1 had filed a suit for recovery of Rs 1,30,917/-against OP-2 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Division) Dabwali, which is pending and due to this reason OP-2 with malafide intention has filed this complaint through complainant to harass the OP-1. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  However, on merits, OP-1 has reiterated the pleadings taken in preliminary objections and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and all the other allegations alongwith allegation for relief sought too are refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5                                       OP-2 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer according to Consumer Protection Act and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is averred that complicated question of law and facts are involved, which require voluminous evidence to be properly adjudicated as every agriculture operation is a long detailed operation. Complainant has levelled false allegations and his allegations are not based on laboratory tests. Moreover, complainant purchased the said seeds for commercial purpose and is therefore, liable to be dismissed. Complainant has filed this complaint to blackmail the answering OP as complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and it is totally denied if complainant has suffered any loss. It is averred that Op-2 has no control over the use of said seeds after the sale, which have sown in the field or not. Seeds in question were of good quality and there is no fault on the part of OPs. Negligence is on the part of complainant and complainant cannot take the benefit of his own wrong. Said report is prepared in connivance with complainant and is not as per actual positions at the spot and it is false and frivolous. It is further averred that seeds manufactured and sold by answering OP is not of spurious, inferior and mixed quality and if there is any loss,  that may be due to other reasons and not by seeds. There is no defect in the seeds purchased by complainant and no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. However, on merits, OP-2 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against OP-2. 

6                                            Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, C-7, affidavit of Major Singh as Ex C-8, affidavit of Gulzar Singh as Ex C-9 and CD Ex C-10 and documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ramesh Kumar as Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to 7 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-1. OP-2 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Lakhvir Singh as Ex OP-2/1 and documents Ex OP-2/2 to 8 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-2.                         

8                                       Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is an agriculturist and is doing farming for his livelihood. In the Kharif season, 2014, OP-1 approached to complainant and told that they are manufacturer of seeds of Paddy 1121 and assured about the purity and quality of seeds. They assured that their seeds will give yield of 24 quintals per acre. OP-2 is the dealer of OP-1 at Jaitu. On the assurance of OP-1, complainant agreed to purchase seeds manufactured by OP-1. He purchased 60 Kg of seeds of Paddy 1121 for his 10 acres of land and paid Rs 6000/-. The seeds were supplied by OP-1 through OP-2 vide duly issued bill Ex C-2. Before sowing the crop, the complainant prepared the land with great care to plant crop of Paddy 1121 in the prescribed manner and sowed the seeds. He prepared nursery with great care and used prescribed quantity of fertilisers, pesticides and other materials for development of the crop. After preparing nursery, he planted it in his 10 acres of land and spent huge amount for preparation of land and diesel, fertilisers, pesticides, insecticides and other things for irrigation and labour in the hope of getting good yield, but all the hopes of complainant dashed to ground when the plants grew up, he noticed that the plants were of mixed and inferior quality. In September 2014, when plants have grown, it came to his notice that plants were of different heights and these were not of same variety i.e Paddy-1121.  50% of plants were of different height than Paddy-1121, which seemed to be of Paddy-1509. The seeds supplied by OPs are not of good quality and not pure. These were of inferior, mixed and adulterated quality. On it, complainant approached OP-2 through whom he purchased seeds. OP-2 informed regarding it to OP-1 who visited the fields of complainant and admitted that seed are of mixed quality and the mistake was done on the part of them. They also admitted loss occurred to the complainant and assured to compensate him for the loss of crop due to mixed quality of seeds. The complainant did video recording at that time. The copy of which is Ex C-10. The complainant also reported the matter to Chief Agriculture Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib and on his application, he appointed Agriculture Development Officer, Kotli Ablu to give technical and physical verification report regarding the loss occurred to him. The concerned ADO checked and inspected the fields of complainant and made his technical report on 1.10.2014 and final report on 28.11.2014 in which he clearly mentioned that there is a mixing of seeds of other variety in the seeds of Paddy-1121 and due to it, there is loss of 30% to the crop. Copy of application moved to Chief Agriculture Officer is Ex C-3. Copy of report dt 1.10.2014 is Ex C-4 and copy of report dt 28.11.2014  is Ex C-5. If there is mixing in the seeds, there is surely loss to the farmer, because every variety have different time of reaping and harvesting. Every variety needs extra pesticides and care and different time of cutting and further the crop of mixed quality is also sold on lesser rate. Due to supply of mixed quality of seeds by OPs, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs 2,50,000/-. The OP-1 promised to give compensation, but they did not meet their promise. Complainant approached OPs many times with request to admit genuine claim of complainant as he suffered huge loss due to their fault, but even after repeated requests of complainant, they flatly refused to pay the compensation to him. A criminal case is also registered against OP-1 for supply of mixed and adulterated  seeds to farmers in Police Station Jaitu, copy of the FIR is Ex C-6. All these acts of Ops amount to deficiency in service. Complainant has prayed for accepting his complaint and for seeking directions to OPs to pay compensation for the loss occurred by him and also for mental tension and harassment alongwith interest and litigation expenses.

9                                               To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 argued that complainant is not their consumer and there is no deficiency in service on their part. The present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has filed the present complaint only in connivance with OP-2 with malafide intention to harass OP-1. The alleged seeds supplied by OP-1 were duly certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and certificate to this effect is affixed on the bags. The detail of the seed certified is also given and physical verification of the raw seeds is also issued which clearly shows that quality of seeds in question is PV-1121 of Paddy, which was certified to be fit for use and approved by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency. Copy of the same is Ex OP-1/2 to 7. The OP-2 is running a Khetri Sewa Centre at Jaitu and he has miserable failed to prove that same seeds which were purchased by him from OP-1 was delivered to complainant by him or not and the complainant also failed to prove that he also has sown the same seeds in the fields. The allegations made by complainant in the present complaint are not based on any scientific or laboratory test. Complainant also failed to prove improper germination of seeds. The seeds were of original and good quality and genuine seeds which were duly approved by the Government and these are sold in the open market after proper permission, licence and certification by the competent authorities. Seeds supplied by Op-1 are not adulterated. The seeds were supplied in sealed packets having batch number on each packet. The Op-1 never approached complainant for purchase of seeds. They never gave any assurance or guarantee regarding quality and yield from the seeds to complainant. The customers themselves approach OP-1 and purchase good quality seeds. The complainant purchased seeds from Op-2. There is no relationship of buyer and seller between complainant and Op-1. Complainant never purchased any seeds from OP-1. He purchased seeds from OP-2 and OP-1 is not aware, which seeds have been purchased by complainant from OP-2 and whether the same seeds are sown by complainant or not. He is also not aware whether seeds are sown in proper manner and other prescribed precautions have been taken or not. The OP-1 supplied seeds to customers after prior checking in the sealed packets duly certified about their quantity, quality and variety. They never supplied any adulterated seeds at any time. The OP-1 sold the same quality of seeds in the market at various places but no one complained about the quality of seeds. It is only the complainant, who has levelled false allegations against OPs without any proof. The seeds prepared and sold by OP-1 are duly certified and authenticated by the competent authority. It is wrong that complainant prepared the land properly for sowing the crop Paddy-1121 and he used prescribed quality of fertilisers and pesticides and other materials for the crop. The complainant has to give strict proof regarding his allegations. Complainant never made any complaint to OP-1 regarding defect in the seeds. He has to wait for the yields and if any defect in the germination arises due to seeds, it comes at the outset, the less yield if any is the failure on the part of complainant to use prescribed and proper means of cultivation.OP-1 never assured complainant regarding compensation for the loss occurred to his crop. The different height of the crop is no proof of different variety of the seeds. The seeds supplied by OP-1 were duly sealed packed and certified by the competent authority. The OP-1 never visited the fields of complainant and never admitted any mistake or loss to complainant and also did not assure complainant to compensate him. The alleged reports from the Agriculture Department are procured ones. The complainant has not purchased seeds from OP-1 and he purchased seeds from OP-2 and OP-1 is not responsible for the seeds supplied by its dealer. The complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from OP-1 as he is not concerned with OP-1. OP-1 is not responsible for any such loss. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP-1. The complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint against OP-1 and same may be dismissed.

10                                       The Ld Counsel for OP-2 argued that the complainant is doing farming business and sells his crop in the market for commercial purpose and therefore, seeds purchased by him for commercial purpose and as it is a commercial transaction so he does not fall in the definition of consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. So, present complaint may be dismissed on this ground. The allegations of complainant are not based on scientific or laboratory tests and are an abuse of process of law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and he is not the service provider. The OP-2 has no control over the use of said seeds after selling as whether these were sown in the field by farmer or not. The OP-2 cannot be held liable for any such claim as claimed by the complainant. The alleged reports of Agriculture Department are procured ones in connivance with officials of Agriculture Department. The OP-2 is only the dealer of OP-1 and is not manufacturer of the seeds. He supplied seeds in the sealed packets which are received by him from OP-1 who is manufacturer of seeds. He never gave any assurance regarding the quality and variety of seeds. It is only OP-1 who gave guarantee regarding the variety and quality of seeds. OP-2 is only re-seller. OP-2 is a reputed shopkeeper of the area. The seeds in question were supplied to him by OP-1 and the same were supplied by him to farmers. It is the only OP-1, who misrepresented about the quality of seeds and supplied the mixed quality of seeds resulting in loss of crop of farmers and also injured the reputation of OP-2. OP-2 purchased the seeds from OP-1 against the duly issued bill, copy of the same is Ex OP-2/5 and 6. He is duly licensed by the competent authority for selling seeds, fertilisers and pesticides to the farmers. The complainant reported the matter to OP-2 and he informed regarding it to OP-1, who admitted that seeds supplied by them were of mixed variety and there is loss of crop due to mixed variety of seeds before farmers and also before Agriculture Department. OP-2 has recording regarding it with him, copy of the same is Ex OP-2/8. Due to supply of substandard quality of seeds by OP-1 and further selling of same by Op-2 to farmers, Agriculture Department suspended the license of OP-2. The OP-2 also gave money to farmers for loss of crop on behalf of OP-1 as OP-1 told him to settle the matter with farmers and assure to reimburse the money, but later on he refused to reimburse that money. The OP-2 also lodged an FIR against OP-1 in Police Station, Jaitu regarding it. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP-2. If there is any deficiency in service and trade mal practice, then it is only on the part of OP-1 and not on the part of OP-2. The present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

11                                            We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by parties.

12.                                   The case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist and OP-1 is the manufacturer of seeds and OP-2 is their dealer. On assurance of OP-1 that  the seeds manufactured by them are of good quality and give good yield. In the Kharif season, 2014, he purchased seeds of variety Paddy-1121 manufactured by OP-1 through OP-2 and sown these seeds in his 10 acres of land but when the crop grew up, he found that the plants were of different heights and different varieties other than the Paddy-1121. He reported the matter to OP-2 and OP-1 visited the land of complainant and admitted that there is mixing in seeds. Complainant also reported the matter to Chief Agriculture Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib who deputed Agriculture Development Officer, Kotli Ablu to inspect the land of complainant and to make report regarding it. In his report Agriculture Department also admitted that there is mixing in the seeds and the complainant suffered loss due to it. In reply OP-1 pleaded that complainant is not their consumer. There is no relationship of Service Provider and consumer between them. Seeds produced by them are of good quality and verified by the competent authority. The complainant failed to prove that he sown the same seeds which was manufactured by OP-1 and he purchased from OP-2. They denied that seeds produced by them are adulterated and of inferior quality and also denied that the complainant suffered any loss due to the seeds supplied by them. OP-2 pleaded that OP-2 is only dealer of OP-1. Seeds are manufactured by OP-1. They receive the sealed packing from OP-1 and they sell the same packings to their customers. If there is any mixing or adulteration in the seeds, it is on part of OP-1.

13                                             The first issue of the OPs is that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as he purchased the seeds for commercial purpose and as he had to sell his crop in the market and he does not fall under definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. On this point, ld counsel complainant has placed reliance on the citation 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 838 (SC) titled as National Seeds Corporation Ltd Vs M Madhusudhan Reddy and another, wherein our Hon’ble Apex Court held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(d)(i)-Consumer – the farmers/growers who purchased good by paying price would fall within the ambit of Section 2(d)(i) of Consumer Act. He put reliance on the citation I (1996) CPJ 110 (NC) titled as Area Manager, National Seeds Corporation Ltd Vs A. Karuppanan Servai & Ors wherein our Hon’ble National Commission held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (d) and (g)- “Agriculturists”  -  “Seeds” – “Commercial Purpose” – Agriculturists purchased paddy seeds known as IR-20 – Paddy raised – Found that paddy seeds did not belong to the said variety but was a mixture of other course variety – Yield was much less and paddy harvested could not be sold at a good price – District Forum allowed the complaint – State Commission upheld the finding – Hence revision – Whether the manufacturer of seeds are liable ? – (yes) –m Whether the complainants are consumers? -  (yes).

14                                     The second point raised by OPs is that the complainant failed to prove that he had sown the same seeds in his fields, which were manufactured by OP-1 and purchased by him from OP-2  and it requires  strict proof. On it ld counsel for complainant put reliance on the citation 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 838 (SC) titled as National Seeds Corporation Ltd Vs M Madhusudhan Reddy and another, wherein our Hon’ble Apex Court held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section13(1) (c) and 12 – Seeds Purchased by Farmers from Seed Corporation – Seeds found to be defective – Farmer unable to produce defective sample before Consumer Forum as entire seed was sown and no sample was retained – Complaint could not be rejected – To prove defect farmers could not be expected to keeping a sample before sowing – Defective sample otherwise proved by Horticulture and Agriculturist experts.

15                                            The Ld Counsel for OPs argued that they never assured complainant regarding the quality of the seeds and seeds produced by them were of good quality. They also challenged the report of Agriculture Department and argued that it is procured one. On it, the ld Counsel for complainant put reliance on the citation (I) (1994 ) CPJ 80 National Commission titled as The Malaprabha Neerwari Balakedarara (irrigation Consumer ) Co-operative Sangha Ltd Vs The State of Karnataka, Department of Agriculture & Ors wherein it is held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14 (1) (d) – “Seeds” – “Compensation” – A seed produced represented to farmers that there Cotton Seed ‘Shivnath’ has a better yield performance than ‘DCH 32’ Cotton Seeds – Farmers purchased the seeds – Where the seeds sprouted, the farmers realised the low resistance and poor germination capacity of the Cotton plants to pest – Consequently the farmers suffered heavy loss in the yield of Cotton – Hence complaint – Evidence was gathered through a two member committee to find out inter alia evidence – Whether Shivnath Cotton Seed was defective in quality – Committee constituted submitted its finding, excluding that performance of this Cotton Seed was poor both in yield and quality – Farmers have incurred loss both in terms of field and market price.

          Held : We have gone through the report of the Commissioners and find that they have considered all the relevant evidences. Their findings are not vitiated in any manner. Therefore, we uphold the report of Commissioners.

The Commissioners have prepared a statement showing the estimated loss incurred by the farmers of Arekurahatti village due to Shiv Nath cotton seeds grown during 1988-89. That statement is at pages 40 to 46 of the report of the Commissioners. Names and addresses of farmers who incurred loss on account of sowing of Shiv Nath Cotton seeds supplied by M/s Nath Seeds Ltd i.e the Company has also been prepared y the Company and it is at pages 47 to 49. We order that both the lists shall form the part of this order. The various farmers mentioned in the list are awarded amounts as estimated by the Commissioners in the list which is at pages 40 to 46 of the report. These amounts will be payable by the Opposite Parties Nos. 5 to 7 jointly and severally within two months of the receipt of this order. The Complainant is also allowed Rs 5000/-as costs of the present proceedings from the said Opposite Parties.

 16                                           The main stress of the OP-1 that the seeds produced by them are of good quality and are duly certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and they sell their sealed packets after due certification of the competent authority. In their support they produced the documents regarding certification of their seeds as Ex OP-1/2 to 7. In these documents Ex OP-1/4 Physical Verification Report and Certificate reveal that the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency physically verified and certified the seeds produced by OP-1 on 28.01.2014. In this report, the Agency verified the seeds packed in the packings of 40 Kg each where as the seeds sold to complainant through OP-2 were packed in the packing of 10 Kg each which is clearly mentioned in the bill Ex C-2, which is issued by OP-2 to complainant and further in the bill Ex OP-2/5, which issued by OP-1 to OP-2 at the time of supplying the seeds to him so in these circumstances, it is every possibility of mixing and adulteration of seeds at the time of repacking of the seeds from the packing of 40 Kg to 10 Kg. Further the plea of the OP-1 that complainant  failed to prove that he purchased the seeds manufactured by them and further he sown the same seeds in his fields. In support of his case, the complainant produced bill Ex C-2 vide which, he purchased the seeds. On this, the bill it is clearly mentioned regarding the manufacturer of the seeds i.e OP-1 and lot no. variety and size of packing. Further OP-2 produced copy of the bill dt 30.04.2014 as Ex OP-2/5 vide which he purchased seeds from OP-1. In these circumstances, the complainant succeeds in proving that he purchased seeds which were produced by OP-1. Further, complainant produced the CD as Ex C-10 and OP-2 also produced CD Ex OP-2/8 in which the OP-1 themselves admitted that there is mixing in the seeds and due to it the farmers suffered loss. The complainant also reported the matter to Agriculture Department who duly submitted their report. First report dt 1.10.2014, which is technical report. Report submitted by Agriculture Department Officer, Kotli Ablu after visiting fields of complainant and reported that height of the plants is different and 30% plants are of different variety than the variety Paddy-1121 and stated that final report will be prepared at the time of harvesting. He submitted his final report dt 28.11.2014 as Ex C-5 vide which he stated  that the average yield of the crop of complainant is 14 quintals per acre and complainant suffered loss to the tune of 30%. From this report, it is clear that complainant suffered loss due to mixing and adulteration in the seeds supplied by OP-1.

 17                                         From the above discussion and arguments led by the parties and case law and evidence produced by the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that complainant suffered loss due to mixing in the seeds which were produced and supplied by Ops to complainant and this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. If the average yield of variety Paddy-1121 is assessed as 20 quintals per acre and as per report of the Agriculture Department, the complainant got the average yield from his land of only 14 quintals per acre and loss assessed to his crop is to the extent of 30 %. As such, complainant suffered loss of 6 quintals per acres which comes for 10 acres, 60 quintals and if the average rate of P-1121 is assessed at the rate of Rs2500 per quintal then, complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs 1,50,000/-to his crop.

18                                            In these circumstances, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed. Ops are directed to pay Rs 1,50,000/- as loss suffered by complainant to his crop due to supply of adulterated seeds by OPs alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per anum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e 9.06.2015 till realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs 10,000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant and     Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. OPs are directed to make payment to complainant jointly and severally within one month of date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 29.01.2016

Member                  Member                President                                          (Parampal Kaur)       (P Singla)            (Ajit Aggarwal)