Haryana

StateCommission

A/638/2016

NATIONAL SEEDS CORP.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

Appeal No.638 of 2016

Date of the Institution:12.07.2016

Date of Decision: 06.12.2016

 

Director National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Beej Bhawan, Pusa, New Delhi-110012.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

 

Ram Kumar son of Maha Singh R/o village Dhurana Block Mundlana, District-Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Ram Kumar, respondent in person.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Director National Seeds Corpn. Ltd.-OP is in appeal against the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Ram Kumar has been allowed by directing the OP to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- in lumpsum for causing loss due to supply of mixed paddy seeds and for rendering deficient services.

2.      Briefly stated, according to the complainant, he purchased the paddy P-1121 variety of seed, from the OP vide cash memo dated 12.03.2015 and the same was shown in 40 acres of land and he had also sown the paddy in 20 acres of land, which he had taken on lease. OP sold the seed of paddy variety of two type mixture i.e. main variety of P-1121 and other variety (mixture or off type). On sowing the different varieties in the paddy crop, he complained before the Deputy Director of Agrl. Sonepat, who along with his team inspected the field and found mixture in all 60 acres of land. Two types of varieties were found, one which was the main variety P-1121 and the other variety (mixture or off type) which could not be identified. In all the total area of 60 acres of land, there was 5-7% plants which were off type plants. The complainant, due to damage to his crop, suffered a huge financial loss to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the OP to pay the lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/-.

3.      Contesting the complaint, the OP pleaded that prior to sale, the said seed was got tested in SLT as well as in quality control lab. The seed 150 KG was not adequate for 60 acres of land as per recommended seed rate i.e. 8 kg per acre. So, the complainant might have purchased some other quality of seed from other sources and he mixed both the seeds before sowing the same in his land and therefore, the complainant faced this problem. Further, Haryana State Seed Corp. Agency issued a certificate regarding the certification of the seed of that lot. Hence, the complainant was not entitled to any relief and compensation and on that basis prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Against the impugned order, the OP/appellant has filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. From the perusal of the record, the following material record are evident:-

i)        The paddy in question was purchased by the complainant from the National Seeds Corporation, Pusa Road, New Delhi, which supply only certified seeds as approved by Govt. of India. In this case the seed in question was certified from Haryana Seeds Certification Agency and its own laboratory.

ii)       The supply of the seeds purchased by the complainant was wholly inadequate for the land sown by the complainant as for 60 acres, the complainant purchased only 150 kg of paddy seeds, whereas he should have purchased atleast 450 kgs. This shows that he had purchased some different variety of paddy seeds from another source which may not be certified and of same standard and variety as supplied by the Haryana Seeds Certification Agency and its own laboratory.

iii)      Before the alleged inspection of the crop, got made by the complainant, no notice whatsoever was issued to the OP nor were the staff of State Agriculture Department associated with the procedure or process of inspection. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on such a report.

5.      Hence, the finding of supply of sub standard seeds leading to deficiency in service is not based on any cogent evidence and the complainant is not entitled to any relief against the OP, much less when no evidence with regard to the actual loss suffered was produced by him. Consequently, the appeal filed by the OP is accepted, the order passed by the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

December 06th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.