Haryana

Kurukshetra

142/2017

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sagar Trading - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Pal

23 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 142 of 2017.

Date of instt. 21.07.2017. 

                                                                       Date of Decision: 23.04.2019.

 

Satnam Singh son of Shri Niranjan Singh, resident of village Isharheri, Block Babain, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. Sagar Traders, near Jiwan Jyoti Hospital, New Grain Market Road,  Shahabad Markanda, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

 

2. Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Limited, Sy. No.69, Gundlapocham Palli (village) Medchal, (Mandal) R.R. District Andhra Pradesh- 501401 through its Director.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Sh. Naresh Pal Kharindwa, Advocate for complainant.     

 Sh. Gur Lal, Advocate for opposite parties.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Satnam Singh against Sagar Traders & another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and has taken land measuring 24 kanals in khewat no.37, situated at village Kahangarh, District Kurukshetra on lease basis from Sh. Puran Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Yara, District Kurukshetra from 15.6.2016 to 14.6.2017. It is alleged that the complainant purchased three bags of 2 Kgs. each of sunflower seed for a sum of Rs.2940/- at the rate of Rs.980/- per bag from op no.1 vide bill No.6119 dated 20.2.2017. It is further alleged that complainant sown the said seed in three acres of land, but the said seed was not genuine. On seeing the plants of sunflower in the fields, the complainant requested the op no.1 to visit his fields, but op no.1 did not listen the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application to the Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Kurukshetra regarding adulterated seeds sold by op no.1 and joint committee/ team of Agriculture Department visited the fields of complainant in three acres and vide report dated 6.6.2017, the committee found that some plants were of other kind and in that plants neither the flowers were there and in some plants inspite of flowers there was no yield and in this way there is loss of 50-55% in the land measuring two acres and 30-35% in one acre land. 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.1,14,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum for the loss of crops and expenses of cultivation and further to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that the complainant has got no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; that the complainant purchased the seed from Op No.1 which was produced by OP No.2  which is a well reputed company; that the complainant in collusion with some officials of the agriculture department procured a false report at the back of the answering Ops; that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not filed any evidence to prove that the seed was defective. The alleged inspection report dated 1.6.2017 does not even whisper anything about any defect in the seed. This report only speaks that there was no proper flowering in two acres and 30-35% in one acre of land. Even in this report, it is no where mentioned that there is any loss or damage to the crop. It is further submitted that no prior notice was given to the op before inspection of the field. The complainant has not mentioned about the cultivation practices adopted by him for better growth of the crop. It is further submitted that it is mandatory on the part of complainant to send the samples of the seeds in the laboratory for analysis as per procedure laid down under Section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act or the complainant should have requested the Ops to arrange the seed samples of the same lot, which he has purchased for testing purpose but the complainant never approached the OPs about the alleged inferior quality of the seed. It is further submitted that complainant has not placed on file any document/ revenue record to show that he is in cultivating possession of the land in question, so he has got no right to file and maintain the present complaint. He has not produced any lease deed of the land in question relating to the land owned by Puran Singh. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             The complainant has placed on file affidavit Ex.CW1/A and the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, the ops did not produce any document.

5.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant had sown sunflower crop in 24 kanals of land which was taken by him on lease basis from Puran Singh son of Sadhu Singh and he had purchased the seed from opposite party no.1 for sowing in 24 kanals of land. But the seed supplied by op no.1 manufactured by op no.2 was defective due to which he has suffered loss as reported by team of agriculture department and the ops are liable to compensate the complainant.

7.             Learned counsel for ops argued that complainant has placed on record Ex.C4 i.e. application given by Puran Singh owner of the land to the Tehsildar for girdawari and on that document Patwari has given report that Puran Singh is owner in possession of about eight acres of land and he has sown sunflower crop in three acres of land in Khewat No.37. The next point argued by learned counsel for ops is that in affidavit Ex.C6, said Puran Singh says that he has given his 24 kanals land to the complainant on lease. So these two documents are contrary to each other. He has further argued that no notice was given to the ops by inspecting team at the time of inspection and so complaint of complainant may please be dismissed.

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

9.             The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. He has also placed on file cash/ credit memo dated 22.2.2017 Ex.C1 from which it is evident that he purchased the seed in question from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.2940/- on 22.2.2017. To prove his version regarding damage to the crop of sunflower, he has relied upon inspection report given by expert team of Agriculture department Ex.C3 which shows that in two acres of land, 50-55% and in one acre 30-35% loss was caused due to defective seed. The affidavit given by owner Puran Singh Ex.C6 itself says that he has given his 24 kanal land to the complainant on lease basis. So, it is proved on record that loss of crop was caused to the complainant in 24 kanals of land which was taken by him on lease basis due to defective seed. On the other hand, the opposite parties have not led any evidence in support of their version and have not furnished even any affidavit to corroborate their plea. From the report Ex.C3 it is evident that the team of the experts of the agricultural department demanded sample of the seed in question from the shopkeeper but same was not available with him. So, it cannot be said that no notice of inspection of the field was given to the ops. So, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  Thus, we assess the total loss as Rs.75,000/- for 50-55% loss of crop of sunflower in two acres and 30-35% loss of crop in one acre of land and the ops are liable to pay the said amount to the complainant.      

10.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.75,000/- 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.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order.  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. on the principle amount of Rs.75,000/- from the date of order till its realization.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:23.4.2019.

  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.