Haryana

Kurukshetra

289/2016

Gulshan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saini Beej - Opp.Party(s)

Dharmender Singh

21 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.289 of 2016.

Date of instt. 25.10.2016. 

                                                                    Date of Decision: 21.12.2018.

   

Gulshan son of Dalip Singh, resident of village Palwal, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Saini Beej Bhandar, 2^nd Gate, Opposite New Grain Market, Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor.
2. Kurukshetra Agrotech Private Limited, 20 Milestone, Indri to Karnal Road, District Karnal, through its Managing 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.  Dharamender Singh, Adv. for complainant.             

 Sh. Rajender Parshad, Adv. for Op No.1.

 Sh. Tirlochan Singh, Adv. for OP No.2.

           

ORDER

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Gulshan against Saini Seed & another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased ten bags of paddy seed from Op No.1 vide bill No.10100 dated 16.5.2016 for a total sum of Rs.4000/-.  At the time of purchase of said seed, OP No.1 assured that the seed is very good quality and will yield good crop of paddy. The complainant had sown the said seed as per instructions and by taking all the precautions. When the plants grown up, the complainant came to know that the seed was not of good quality, rather it was mixed seed and due to that reason, when the paddy plants grew up, the complainant noticed that the seed supplied by the Ops was substandard, defective and mixed one. The complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra for inspection and the officers of the department visited the fields and submitted their inspection report.  As per report 20% of plants are different with other 80% plants as result of showing of mixed seed.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of Ops many times and requested to pay compensation but they did not pay any heed.  Thus, complainant claims Rs.2,78,882/- as loss of yield, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant.

3.             Upon notice, OPs appeared.  OP No.1 contested the contested the complaint by filing the written statement raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and as such, he is not entitled for any compensation; that the seed which was purchased by the complainant is a certified paddy seed which was certified under the supervision of certificate agency and tested under the state seeds testing laboratory and then were supplied after verifying the certificate. Even no khasra girdwari showing plantation of Pea seed has been produced; that the complainant has not got tested the seed before filing the present complaint, so the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the mandatory provisions of the Act not complied with. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

4.            OP No.2 contested the complaint by filing the separate written statement raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant had purchased ten bags of paddy seed for cultivation in his fields for “commercial purpose” i.e. for raising the paddy crop and selling the same in market to gain profit, so the present complaint not maintainable; that the alleged inspection report has been prepared at the back and without prior notice to the answering OP and as such, the same is not binding on the answering OP; that the complainant had not taken adequate care and acted negligently in respect of the crop; that the answering OP send the seed to other various dealers but no complaint has ever been received from any of the dealer or consumer, so there is no fault on the part of answering OP. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

5.            In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW2/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.  The Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is owner of land 13 acres and submitted jamabandi of land of complainant at the time of arguments i.e. Mark-A.  The complainant has purchased 10 bags of paddy seed of marka PR-121 from the Op no.1 on 16.05.2016 for a sum of Rs.4,000/-, copy of bill is Ex.C1.  Counsel of complainant also contended that the complainant was surprised to see that the plants were not ripened and he gave application to the Agriculture Department for inspection of crop. The Agriculture Department gave report Ex.C2 in which it is clear that 20% of paddy were not ripened.  So, there was 20% damage to crop of complainant.  So, he prayed for acceptance of complaint.

9.             On the other hand, both the counsel of Ops contended that there is no mention of damage in the report, Ex.C2.  He further contended that Ex.C2 clearly shows that the plants were in different stage.  This report did not show about the damage of the plants.  The next point argued by the counsel of Ops that the Agriculture Department has not sent notice to the Ops at the time of inspection.  It is mandatory provision of Haryana Govt., which is Ex.R6 and Ex.R7.  It is also argued by the counsel of Ops that the Seed Analysis Report is Ex.R3 which shows that the paddy seeds were given by the Op to the complainant is very good and pure quality.  The counsel of Op No.2 placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2015910 CPJ page 530 titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop (NC); 2013(3) CPR page 386 titled as Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P.Chowdaiah etc. (NC); 2005(3) SCC page 198 titled as Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and another (SC) and 2017(3) CPJ page 450 titled as Zimidara Agro Center Vs. Sukhdev Singh etc. (NC). 

10.            From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, we find that it is admitted fact by the Ops that the seed was purchased by the complainant from the Op No.1.  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 (supra), 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”.  Keeping in view the ratio applied by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in the said authority as-well-as facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  The authorities submitted by the counsel of Ops are not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.  In the present case, we assess the loss as per calculation mentioned below:-

Total land	Expected yield	Expected Rate	Loss	Total loss
13 acre	24 Quintal per acre	Rs.1350/- per acre	Rs.1350/-x24 quintal=Rs.32,400/-x20%loss (as per report,Ex.C2)=Rs.6480/- per acre	Rs.84,240/-(Rs.6480/-x 13 acre)

 

11.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.84,240/- as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant and further to pay Rs.10,000/- 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.:21.12.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.