Haryana

Kurukshetra

108/2017

Karnail Sinhgh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rakesh Khunger - Opp.Party(s)

Mohinder Singh

23 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.108 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.05.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:23.01.2019.

Karnail Singh son of Sh. Bhagmal, resident of Village Hansala (Dera Kamboj Majra), Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Rakesh Khunger S/o Gian Chand, Prop. Mahadev Beej Bhandar, Salarpur Road, Kurukshetra.
2. Dhanya Seed, 808, B Wing, RJD Business HUB, Behind Baba Ganesh Temple, Katargam, Surat.

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Mohinder Singh Lukhi, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                OP No.1 in person.

                Op No.2 already exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Karnail Singh against Rakesh Khunger, the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased seeds of maize of Rs.3,000/- bearing batch No.1785018, type of seed Tata Dhanya 7659 from the Op No.1 vide bill No.2478 dt. 15.02.2017.  It is alleged that the complainant in a very diligent manner after ploughing, preparing, manauring and watering the land properly sown the seeds in the Ist week of March, 2017 in 13 kanal of land but the seeds did not germinate properly.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Agriculture Department, Kurukshetra and moved an application on 20.03.2017 and upon which, a joint team of department inspected the spot on 30.03.2017 and found that 35 to 40% less germination of seeds.  It is further alleged that the seeds sold by the Op were of inferior/defective quality and due to which, the complainant has suffered a heavy loss.  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 Op to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as the loss suffered by him or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit. 

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. 21.12.2018.  Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of C.P.Act, 1986 has not been complied with; that the complainant had not sown the seeds as per recommended package of practices and as per norms; that the success of crops depends on the weather condition, suitability and fertility of the area, water and irrigation facility, quality of fertilizer and various other factors.  The success of Maize crop is highly dependent on temperature, pest and disease attach and other climatic factors.  The complainant had not placed on record any revenue record or any will regarding the pesticides and fertilizer used for the germination of Maize crop.  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.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.           On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased seeds of maize of Rs.3,000/- vide bill No.2478 dt. 15.02.2017 from the Op No.1, copy of bill is Ex.C1.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said seed was defective and he suffered loss due to defective seed.  The complainant has placed on file the inspection report of Agriculture Department, Ex.C4.  On the other hand, the contention of Op No.1 is that the Op No.1 sold the seeds of maize in the same manner as received from the Op No.2, who is the manufacturer of seeds.  The Op No.1 also contended that the Agriculture Department has not sent notice to the Ops at the time of inspection. This contention of Op No.1 has no force because it is not the duty of complainant to give notice to company at the time of inspection of fields.  We can rely upon the authority titled as Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajpal & others 2014(3) CPJ page 196 wherein it has been held by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana that “Agriculture-Purchase of seeds-Defects-Loss of crops-Deficiency in service-Compensation claimed-District Forum allowed complaint-Hence appeal-Contention, reports submitted by Deputy Director was not as per guidelines issued by Director of Agriculture-Not accepted-Constitution of inspection team as per letter of Director of Agriculture and not associating dealer of seeds was not the fault of farmers at all for which they should not be allowed to suffer”. In the present case, the Op No.2 was proceeded against exparte.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Op No.2.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2.  In the present case, we assess the loss as per calculation mentioned below:-

Total land	Expected yield	Expected Rate	Loss	Total loss
1½ acre (13 kanal)	15 Quintal per acre	Rs.1500/- per acre	Rs.1500/-x15 quintal=Rs.22,500/-x40%loss (as per report,Ex.C4)=Rs.9,000/- per acre	Rs.13,500/-(Rs.9,000/-x 1.5 acre)

 

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint against Op No.2 and direct the Op No.2 to pay Rs.13,500/- as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges.  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.:23.01.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.