Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/89/2015

Harminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pagro Forzen Foods Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Anwar Hussain

13 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.89 of 2015

                                                            Date of institution:  15.10.2015             

                                                                Date of decision  :   13.06.2016

 

Harminder Singh son of Nachhattar Singh, resident of VPO Bugga Kalan, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                                      ………Complainant

 

Versus

1. Pagro Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director Pawaninder Singh Dhillon, Registered Office 50, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh.
2. Pagro Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., through its M.D. Working office village Jalbehri Gehlan, Adjoining G.T.Road, Near Sadhugarh, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

  …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                  

 

Present :      Sh. Anwar Hussain, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.

                         Sh. Damandeep Singh, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.

 

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Harminder Singh son of Nachhattar Singh, resident of VPO Bugga Kalan, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) . The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                    The OPs approached the complainant through its employees in the month of May, 2015 and convinced him for growing crop of sweet corn in his field and also assured the complainant that their seeds of sweet corn are of high yield and are genetically resistant to heavy winds and also against the standing water upto 7 to 10 days. The OPs also assured that there will be about 60 qtls. of baby sweet corn from 1 acre of land. The complainant offered 9 acres of land and agreed to produce baby sweet corns on behalf of OPs for the purpose of earning his livelihood by self employment and by suing his skill and labour. The OPs also assured the complainant that the crop will be insured by them. The OPs supplied 31 KG of Sweet corn seed at the rate of 2100/- per Kg. The complainant has the bills of 27 KG of sweet corn seed and rest of 4 Kg was purchased at the instructions of employees of OPs. The OPs have agreed to purchase baby sweet corns of 80 days at the rate of Rs.6.50/- per Kg.  In the 3^rd week of July, 2015, the whole crop of sweet corn was damaged due to rains and moreover no baby sweet corns were produced by the stems of the plant. The complainant informed the OPs regarding the damage and Mr. Harvinder Singh, who is field inspector of OPs, visited the spot and also took photographs and assured the complainant that the crop was insured by the OPs. On 21.07.2015 the complainant again approached OPs and authorized person of OPs promised to pay Rs.20,000/- per acre, i.e. the cost of labour, fertilizers and seeds to the complainant. But after 3 days it refused to do so. The complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,75,000/- for the growth of crop, which the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant since the seeds supplied by OPs were substandard and defective as it cannot resist the water and winds.  The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay the claimed amount along with compensation for pain, mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint the OPs stated that it never approached the complainant in the month of May 2015, rather, after seeing the profits being earned by other farmers, the complainant himself approached the OPs for producing sweet corn. After entering into a contract, the employees of the OPs visited the fields for spot inspection and it was a contract of producing sweet corn as per the instructions of the OPs. It is further stated that the Field Executive of the company, namely; Harvinder Singh, recommended the complainant to drain the accumulated water from the fields but the complainant did not drain out the rainy water from his fields and due to negligence of the complainant, all the crops stood damaged. It is further stated that it is specifically mentioned/written in the contract that the complainant will maintain the land and provide timely fertilizers at his own cost. It was also agreed by the complainant that he will deliver the whole crop to the OPs without any failure on his part. The complainant caused heavy loss to the company by his negligent act/farming and he is bound to compensate the company in terms of money. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                   In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copies of bills Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-8, attested copies of receipts Ex. C-10 and Ex. C-11, attested copy of contract of land Ex. C-12, attested copy of legal notice Ex. C-13, attested copy of reply to notice by the OPs Ex. C-14 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gobind Singh Ex. OP-1, true copies of documents i.e. agreement Ex. OP-2, farm fields record Ex. OP-3, observation and recommendation Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence.

5.                   The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present case is that the seeds purchased from the OPs were insured by the OPs and the OPs refused to reimburse the loss. He further submitted that due to rains the said crops got damaged and complainant approached the OPs to access his loss and reimburse the same. The ld. counsel pleaded that the complainant intimated the OPs regarding the damage and Mr. Harvinder Singh, who is field inspector of OPs, visited the spot. He also argued that Mr.Harvinder Singh took the photographs and assured the complainant that the crop were insured by the  OPs. He further pleaded that on 21.07.2015 the complainant again approached the OPs and authorized person of OPs promised to pay Rs.20,000/- per acre, i.e. the cost of labour, fertilizers and seeds to the complainant. But after 3 days OPs refused to do reimburse. The ld. counsel argued that the complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,75,000/- for the growth of crop, which the OPs were liable to pay to the complainant since the seeds supplied by OPs were substandard and defective as it could not resist the water and winds. The ld counsel also argued that it is evident from the act and conduct of the OPs that they have committed deficiency of service and the complainant deserves to be compensated for the same.

6.                   On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has denied the contentions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. He submitted that in view of the contents of the agreement i.e Ex.OP-2, there is no such clause that states that in the event of damage or loss to the crops the OPs shall be liable to reimburse the loss. He also submitted that there is no such clause in the agreement between the parties that states that the said crops/seeds were insured by the OPs. The ld. counsel pleaded that it is established from the “Farmers Field Record” i.e Ex.OP-3(colly) that the seeds supplied by the OPs were of high quality. He also pleaded that it is evident from the observations and recommendation i.e Ex.OP-4 made by the inspector deputed by the OPs from time to time, that the complainant was not complying with the recommendations of the inspector and due to the negligence of the complainant the said crops got damaged. The ld. counsel further pleaded that it is also evident from the recommendation dated 16/07/2015 that the complainant was advised to drain the standing rain water from the fields, as it may destroy the crops but the complainant did not pay any heed to the recommendation and as a result the said crops got damaged. The ld. counsel argued that rather the complainant caused heavy loss to the OP-Company by not following the recommendation and by his negligent act. He further argued that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with special cost.

7.                   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 ld. counsel for the OPs. It is evident from the agreement i.e Ex.OP-2 between the parties that the said seeds/crops were not insured by the OPs nor there is any such clause in the said agreement that to reimburse the complainant in event of loss of crops. It is also established from the “Farmers Field Record” i.e Ex.OP-3(colly) that the seeds supplied by the OPs were of high quality and the OP-Company was giving proper guidance to the complainant, in order to maintain the said crops. It is also proved from the Recommendation and Observations i.e Ex.OP-4 that the Inspector appointed by the OPs had on 16/07/2015 recommended to the complainant to drain the standing rain water from the fields but the complainant did not bother to follow the recommendation, which resulted in loss of the said crops. It has also come to our notice that all the documents placed on record by the OPs are signed by complainant in English and therefore it cannot be held that he was an illiterate person. Moreover no analyst report has been placed on record by the complainant, in order to prove his allegation with regard to quality of the seeds. In our opinion the loss incurred by the complainant was due to his own negligence and the OPs cannot be held liable for the same.

8.                   Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that the OPs have not committed any deficiency of service. The said crops got damaged due to the negligence of the complainant. Hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed being denuded. Parties to bear their own cost.            

 

9.                   The arguments on the complaint were heard on 06.06.2016 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: 13.06.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)               President

 

                                                                               (Veena Chahal)                                                                                            Member