Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/248/2022

Kuldeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sales Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Jagdish Sheroran

30 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                            Complaint Case No. : 248 of 2022

                                                            Date of Institution    : 23.12.2022

                                                            Date of decision:      : 30.08.2024

 

Kuldeep son of Sh. Duli Chand R/o village Nangla, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                        ...Complainant. 

                                                    Versus.

1.  Sales Manager, Haryana Land Reclamation & Development Corporation Limited, Shop No.103, New Anaj Mandi, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

2.  Managing Director, Haryana Land Reclamation & Development Corporation Limited, Registered Head Office: Bays No.1-2, Sector-4 Panchkula, Haryana-134112.

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Jagdish Sheoran, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Mahesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for OPs.

 

                                                  ORDER:

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.                 Brief facts of the case present complaint are that complainant purchased 5 Bags of wheat seeds (40 Kg. per bag) from OP No.1 on 10.11.2022 in Rs.5350/-. On 12.11.2022, the seed was sown in 5 acres of land alongwith DAP, Zink,Potash etc. as per directions of OP No.1. It is alleged that the seeds not germinated despite passing sufficient time. So, complainant and other farmers moved an application to Agriculture Department, Bhiwani on 21.11.2022. Upon which, inspection team of Agriculture Department visited the fields of complainant on 24.11.2022 and reported that there is only 10% germination in the wheat seeds in the field of complainant. Complainant has submitted that due to supply of inferior quality of seeds, complainant has to suffer monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. It is submitted that there was loss of Rs.45,600/- towards cost of seeds, DAP, Zink, Potas, cost of cultivation and watering the fields. Besides this, complainant ought to have yield 100 quintal wheat crop from 5 acres land and at the rate of Rs.2250/- per quintal which comes to Rs.2,25,000/- and fodder of Rs.50,000/-. As such, complainant has suffered a total loss of Rs.3,20,600/-. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and to direct them to pay Rs.3,20,600/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 12.11.2022 till actual realization. Besides, Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment and to pay Rs.11,000/-towards litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objection qua maintainability of complaint, locus standi, mis-joinder, non-joinder of necessary parties, suppression of material facts an and that the seeds have not been got tested from any Seed Analyst as required under Section 13,15 & 23A of the Seed Act, 1966.  On merits, it is admitted that the seeds were purchased by complainant but it is urged that complainant and his four co-villagers have not followed the guidelines given by the OPs qua sown of the seeds in the field.  It is suggested that the alleged inspection was not carried out in the presence of OPs which was necessary as per instructions of Haryana Govt. contained in letter  No.52-70/TA(SS) dated 03.01.2002. The pesticides/fertilizers used by complainant as per their own knowledge and wish. It is submitted that besides complainant and his four co-villagers have not complained about the seeds. The OPs have submitted that the seeds so sold to the complainant was certified seeds by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and the germination of the alleged seed was minimum 85%. As such, denied for any deficiency in service on unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 Complainant in evidence, tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence on 09.08.2023.

4.                 On the other hand, Affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Mr.Ramphal Sharma, Manager alongwith documents Annexure-1 to Annexure-13 were tendered in evidence and closed the same on 24.07.2024.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely. Complainant to prove his complaint has placed on record, purchase bill of the alleged seeds Ex.C-1. He has relied upon inspection report carried out by Agriculture Department (Ex.C-4) wherein it is mentioned that there was 10% germination of wheat seeds in the field. Complainant in order to show his ownership over the land has placed on record copy of jamabandi (Ex. C-7). Learned counsel for complainant has argued that from the evidence produced on behalf of complainant, there was less germination due to defective seeds sold by the OPs to the complainant and thereby caused heavy loss and thus the Ops are liable to compensate the complainant as prayed for in the complaint.

6.                 On the other side, the Ops, to substantiate their case has placed on records documents Annexure-1 to Annexure-13 viz. seed certification documents, who is required to be joined in inspection team and application of some villagers qua good germination of the alleged seeds. Thus learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the seeds were of best quality and they sold it to the complainant in a sealed and packed manner but the complainant not used the seeds as per instructions for using the same. The counsel further argued that the loss, if any, has occurred to the complainant due to his own fault. The counsel has urged that they have sold the said seeds to many farmers but no complaint has yet been received from any of them except the complainant and his four co-villager. Further, there is no report of inspection team of agriculture department that the loss occurred to the complainant due to seeds sold by OPs. Further, no officer of agriculture department has been summoned to authenticate the loss caused to the complainant due to the alleged seeds. As such, the counsel has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

7.                 After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through pleadings and evidence produced from both the sides, we have observed that the complainant has purchased the seeds in question from the OPs and as per report of agriculture department (Ex.C-4) there was only 10% germination of wheat seeds in the field, meaning thereby that there was loss of 90% to the crop of complainant and from the land record it is evident that complainant had sown the wheat crop in 5 acres.

8.                 In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the loss to the wheat crop of complainant has occurred due to inferior quality of seeds sold by OPs. Thus the act & conduct of OPs amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service which has caused him financial loss as well as mental pain and physical harassment for which complainant is entitled to be compensated by the OPs.  From the averments in the complaint and affidavits of complainant, loss of 100 quintal wheat production in 5 acres occurred to him, however, we are taking average wheat production in one acre as 16 quintal. As per report of agriculture department, after calculating the loss of 90% production, it comes to 72 quintals. The rate of wheat has been shown as Rs.2250/- per quintal so, the total amount of loss has become Rs.1,62,000/-. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following direction within 40 days from the date of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- (Rs. one lac sixty two thousand) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                     In case of default, the OPs shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite parties may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 30.08.2024