BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.
Complaint Case No.209 of 2017.
Date of institution: 04.10.2017.
Date of decision:10.12.2018.
Roshan Lal, aged about 40 years son of Sh. Kalu Ram, r/o Village Potli Dera, P.O. Khurdbn, Teshil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Prem Beej Bhandar, Radaur Road, Ladwa, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra through its proprietor.
- Mahindra Agri. Solutions Ltd., Mahindera Tower, Dr. G.M.Bhosle Marg, P.L. Kurne Chowk. Worli, Mumbai-400018 (Maharashtra) through its Managing Director.
….Respondents.
Before: Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.
Ms. Neelam, Member.
Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.
Present: Sh. Mahesh Sodha, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Arora, Advocate for the OP No.1.
Op No.2 exparte.
ORDER
This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Roshan Lal against Prem Beej Bhandar and another, the opposite parties.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased 5 Kilogram seed of Sarso MU-6565 bearing batch No.32MCR6349 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,000/- vide bill No.6824 dt. 06.10.2016. It is alleged that the complainant planted the aforesaid seed of Sarso in 2.5 acre of land and when the above-said crop was going to nourish, he found that there is mixture of other seed in the Sarso. It is further alleged that the complainant moved an application on 16.12.2016 to the Deputy Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri and on the application of complainant, a team came at the fields of complainant and found that there is 75% mixture of some other seed. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by him and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges.
3. Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 20.02.2018. Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the report alleged to have been prepared by the officials/officer of Agriculture Department is totally false and incorrect; that at the time of alleged inspection of the fields of complainant, neither any notice was served nor the Op was informed to reach at the spot; that as per the letter dt. 03.01.2002 and letter dt. 18.03.2009 issued by the Director of Agriculture in the State in which it is mentioned that the field of farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of the Agriculture Department and one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU but the officer of the Agriculture Department inspected the fields as well as prepared a false report in the absence of the Op; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.1.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant purchased 5 Kilogram seed of mustard (sarso) from the Op No.1 and planted the same in 2.5 acre of land. He further contended that when the crop was matured, the complainant found that there is mixture of other seed in the mustard (sarso). He further contended that in the inspection report, Ex.C3, the committee constituted by Agriculture Department reported that there is 75% mixture of some other seed. The counsel of complainant has placed reliance upon the case law titled as H.N.Shankara Shastry Vs. The Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka bearing civil appeal No.2253 of 1999, date of decision: 06.05.2004 (SC).
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint. He contended that the report alleged to have been prepared by the officials/officer of Agriculture Department is totally false and incorrect. He further contended that the complaint may kindly be dismissed. Counsel of Op No.1 has placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2007(1) CPC page 95 titled as Anand Singh Vs. Khurana Seed Store and another (Haryana State Commission); 2013(3) CPR page 386 titled as Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah & others (NC); 2010(2) CPC page 423 titled as Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. Velaga Narasimha Rao & others (NC) and 2007(2) CLT page 683 titled as Narender Kumar Vs. Arora Trading Company and others (Haryana State Commission).
9. From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of submissions of both the parties, it is clear from the report of Agriculture Department, Ex.C3 that there was 75% mixture of other variety of the seed supplied by the Ops which caused financial damage to the complainant. So, from the said report, it is clear that the seed supplied by the Ops was of defective and sub-standard. The authorities submitted by the counsel of Op No.1 are not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case. In the present case, the complainant has demanded Rs.2,0,000/- as loss suffered by him but we assess the loss as per calculation mentioned below:-
Total land | Expected yield | Expected Rate | Loss | Total loss |
2½ acre | 10 Quintal per acre | Rs.4200/- per acre | Rs.4200/-x10 quintal=Rs.42,000/-x75%loss (as per report,Ex.C3)=Rs.31,500/- per acre | Rs.78,750/-(Rs.31,500/-x 2½ acre) |
10. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to pay Rs.78,750/- as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.: 10.12.2018.
(Neelam Kashyap)
President
(Sunil Mohan Trikha), (Neelam)
Member Member
