Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/135/2019

Paramjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saini Brothers - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.135 of 2019.

Date of instt.:09.04.2019.            

Date of Decision:21.11.2019.

 

Paramjeet Singh s/o Shri Ram Sarup, r/o village Indbari, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                            Versus

 

1. M/s Saini Brothers, Opp. 2^nd Gate, New Anaj Mandi, Kurukshetra, through its Dealer.
2. Yamuna Seed, Bajaj Market, Indri, District Karnal, through its Managing Director.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.                                                   

Present:     Complainant in person.

Shri Hemant Prasher, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Paramjeet Singh against M/s Saini Brothers and other, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one bag of seed of wheat from the OP No.1 to the tune of Rs.1600/- vide bill No.310 dated 26.1.2019 and at the time of selling the said seed, the OP No.1 assured that the said seed is of good standard quality. He sown the said seed as per instructions given by the OP No.1 after spending huge amount, but he became stunned to see that there is no growth in the said seed. Thereafter, he approached the OP No.1 and requested to visit his fields to see the condition of wheat, but he refused. He approached District Agricultural Officer, Kurukshetra, who visited the spot and gave his inspection report that only 50-60 plants of wheat were growth. Thereafter, he approached the OPs many times to pay the compensation regarding issuance of sub-standard seed, but they refused to pay anything. The said act and conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in services. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, no one appeared on behalf of the OPs before this Forum, as such, the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.5.2019. However, during the pendency of the complaint, an order received from the Hon’ble State Commission, Panchkula, Haryana, vide which, the ex-parte order dated 22.5.2019 was set aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs.4,000/-. Cost paid and accordingly, the OP No.1 was permitted to join further proceedings of the case. The OP No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction and locus-standi. It is stated that the OP No.1 purchased the said seed in sealed condition from the OP No.2 and sold the same to the complainant in a sealed condition. Moreover, the product is manufactured by the OP No.2 with full precautions and when the same is found upto standard specification, only then the same is sent in the market. There is no complaint from any other farmer except the present complaint. The quality of the seed and germination thereof depends upon numbers of factors like variety of land, moisture in the land, whether/climate and fertile power etc. The alleged report of agriculture deptt. is procured by the complainant in collusion with the officials of the said department, otherwise, the complainant had not narrated this facts to the OPs about any kind of defects in the seed. The reasons for bolting and doubling of the wheat is as under:-

• Direct showing of seed without making nursery.
• Transplanting nurseer of more than 45 days.
• If the distance between two seeds ling is more and fertilizer doses are even slightly excess, then the bolting and double arise.
• Excess use of fertilizer having major Nitrogen content such as Urea Causes bolting and doubling.
• If Nitrogen base fernier is given after 60 days of transplantation bolting will occurs.
• Use of fertilizer when soil is reach with composed/cow dung manure or excess use of composed and law dunk manure causes, bolting, doubling and abnormal crop condition.
• Excess irrigation and very low irrigation also cause bolting and doubling.
• If irrigation is given when crop is ready to harvest that will definitely cause bolting and doubling.
• Excess use of chemical, fertilizer and pesticide.
• Tremendous change in temperature during day and night.
• Sudden change in climate is also major reason for bolting.
• If the temperature goes below 14 degree during the period of 75 days after transplanting for more than one week causes heavy bolting.
• If the wheat crop is inter cropped or is sown after the crop requiring high dose of fertilizer and irrigation bolting and doubling may arise.
• If the preceding (previous) crop were such kind which does nitrogen fixating or enrich nitrogen in soil. Bolting will occurs (such as soybean, beans, green manuring crop).
• Delay in harvesting even when the crop is fully mature (complete neck fall) will cause sure bolting and doubling.

                On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-4. On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1.

5.             We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP and perused the case file carefully and minutely.  

6.             The complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that he purchased one bag of seed of wheat from the OP No.1 to the tune of Rs.1600/- and sown the same as per instructions given by the OP No.1 after spending huge amount, but there was no growth of the said seed. He approached District Agricultural Officer, Kurukshetra, who visited the spot and gave his inspection report that only 50-60 plants of wheat were growth. By selling the sub-standard seed, the OPs are deficient in services.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 also reiterated all the contents mentioned in the written statement. He argued that the OP No.1 purchased the seed in question in sealed condition from the OP No.2 and also sold the same to the complainant in the sealed condition. There is no complaint from any other farmer except the present complaint. The complainant had not complied with the direction, specification and instructions of the company regarding sowing of. He further argued that the alleged report is false, fabricated, manipulated in collusion with the officials of Agriculture department by the complainant and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

8.             There is no dispute that the complainant purchased the seed in question from the OP No.1 for a total sum of Rs.1600/- vide bill dated 26.1.2019 (Ex.C-1). The grievance of the complainant is that he sown the said seed in his field as per instructions given by the OP No.1, but the seed was not grown up. In this regard, he approached District Agricultural Officer, Kurukshetra, who visited the spot and gave the inspection report Ex.C3. In the said inspection report Ex.C-3, the inspection committee reported that coagulation of the seed is nil and only 50-60 plants of wheat were grown up. These contents of the report Ex.C-3 clearly indicates that the seeds in question provided by the OPs to the complainant, was not of good quality, rather the same was of sub-standard quality. It may be stated here that the OP No.1 was also present at the time of said inspection on behalf of him as well as on behalf of OP No.2. It is pertinent to mention here that in the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective and nothing remains with him, which could be tested in a laboratory. So, the contention of OP No.1 regarding compliance of the provision of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has also no force. In this context, we can rely upon the authority reported as M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Versus M. Madhusudhan Reddy and others, 2012(1), ACJ, page No.265 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that "It is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. On the other hand a senior officer of the Government had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective”. Keeping in view the above facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the seed provided by the OPs to the complainant was not of good quality and the same was of sub-standard quality. Hence, the OPs have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and there is gross deficiency in service on their part.

9.             Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? The complainant purchased the seed in question on 26.1.2019 and sown the same in his fields. When the said seed was not grown up, then on his complaint, the inspection committee inspected his fields on 15.2.2019. Meaning thereby, the fields of the complainant remained occupy for all the above process from 26.1.2019 to 15.2.2019 for about one month. In view of above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the end of justice would be met if the OPs be directed to refund the cost of the seed in question amounting Rs.1600/- alongwith compensation of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant, on account of loss suffered by the complainant.    

10.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To pay the cost of seed amounting Rs.1600/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and         physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith   litigation expenses.

                The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:  

Dt.21.11.2019.                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                          President

 

                     (Sunil Mohan Trikha)       (Neelam)

                             Member                        Member