Haryana

StateCommission

A/988/2015

SAHIB SEEDS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATBIR - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

06 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No: 988, 989, 1019 of 2015 & 127 of 2016

                    Date of Institution: 18.11.2015; 30.11.2015 & 10.02.2016

Date of Decision: 06.06.2016

 

Appeal No.988 of 2015

 

M/s Sahib Seeds Limited, Shop No.8, New Subji Mandi Seed Market Karnal through its Proprietor.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Satbir s/o Sh. Prem Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office Panokhra, District Karnal.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

Appeal No.989 of 2015

1.      M/s Sahib Seeds Limited, Branch office Cotton/Mirch Mandi Road, Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad through its Proprietor.

2.      M/s Sahib Seeds Limited, Head Office, SCF No.11, New Subji Mandi, Karnal through its Managing Director.

Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Jagdish Chander s/o Sh. Maam Chand, Resident of Shahpur, Tehsil District Karnal. 

Respondent/Complainant

Appeal No.1019 of 2015

 

Satbir s/o Sh. Prem Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office Panokhra, District Karnal.

Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Sahib Seeds Limited, Shop No.8, New Subji Mandi Seed Market,

Head Office, SCF No.11, New Subji Mandi, Karnal, through its Proprietor.

Respondent/Opposite Party

Appeal No.127 of 2016

 

Jagdish Chander s/o Sh. Maam Chand, Resident of Shahpur, Tehsil District Karnal.

Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Sahib Seeds Limited, Shop No.8, New Subji Mandi Seed Market, Karnal through its Proprietor.

2.      M/s Sahib Seeds Limited, S.C.F. No.11, New Subji Mandi, Karnal through its Manager.  

Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for Sahib Seeds.

Shri Mohan Sharma, Advocate for complainant-Satbir.

Shri Sandeep Lathar, proxy counsel on behalf of Sh.Ravinder Malik, Advocate for complainant-Jagdish Chander.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

In these four appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), orders dated September 30^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaints No.853 and 884 of 2008 filed by Jagdish Chander and Satbir-complainants respectively, are under challenge. By the impugned orders, the District Forum has allowed the complaints. For ready reference, the operative parts of the orders are reproduced as under:-

Complaint No.853 (F.A. No.989/2015 & 127/2016)

“….we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.24000/- to the complainant as loss suffered by him on account of mixed varieties of seed supplied to him by the Ops. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused  to him and for the litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

 

Complaint No.884 (F.A. No.988 & 1019 of 2015)

“….we accept the present complaint and direct the Op to make the payment of Rs.30000/- to the complainant for loss suffered by him. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

2.      Appeals No.988 and 989 have been filed by M/s Sahib Seeds Limited for setting aside the impugned orders whereas Appeals No.1019 and 127 have been filed by complainants for enhancement of compensation.

3.      These appeals are being disposed of by this common order because the question of facts and law involved is identical.

4.      Complainants-Jagdish Chander and Satbir, purchased 12 Kgs. and 40 Kgs. Paddy seed of P-1460 variety on April 28^th and May 3^rd, 2008 vide receipts Exhibits C-2 and C-6 by paying Rs.2400/- and Rs.6000/- respectively. After preparing nursery, Jagdish Chander transplanted the crop in three acres and Satbir in four acres of land.  When the crop was at vegetative stage, it was found that the seed supplied to them was defective and mixed with some other variety. They approached the opposite party to compensate them but to no avail.

5.      The complainants approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal who constituted a team of agriculture experts comprising of Subject Matter Specialist (P.P.) Karnal; Senior Coordinator, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University and Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer Karnal.

6.      The team of agriculture experts inspected the fields of complainant-Satbir on October 6^th, 2008 and submitted report Exhibit C-7. The operative part of the report reads as under:-

“Committee observed that all the four (4) acres of paddy were short stature, medium duration and non basmati type.”

7.      The crop of complainant-Jagdish Chander was inspected by the agriculture experts on October 15^th, 2008 vide report Exhibit C-4, the relevant part of which reads as under:-

“3.     Committee observed that there was no uniformity in maturity/ripening in the paddy field. Approximately 15% plants were in flowering stage and 50% in dough stage and remaining 35% plants were physiological matured/ripened and ready for harvest.

4.      Committee concluded that this uneven maturity/ripening cause loss in quality and quantity of paddy and due to this estimated loss may be 65% per acre in the paddy yield.”

8.      A perusal of the bills (Exhibits C-2 and C-6) issued by M/s Sahib Seeds Limited, whereby paddy seed was sold to Jagdish Chander and Satbir, bear the same batch number 2008/21.  The seed was of P-1460 variety but the agriculture experts gave two different reports (Exhibits C-4 and C-7).  In the report (Exhibit C-4) of Jagdish Chander’s case, it was stated that there was no uniformity in maturity/ripening in the paddy fields. Approximately, 15% plants were in flowering stage and 50% in dough stage and remaining 35% plants were physiological matured/ripened and ready for harvest. The estimated loss was to the extent of 65%. However, in the report (Exhibit C-7) of Satbir’s case, it was nowhere stated that the seed was adulterated, rather it was stated that the paddy crop was of short stature, medium duration and non basmati type.

9.      Admittedly, the team of the agriculture experts had not given any notice to M/s Sahib Seeds before inspecting the fields of the complainants. Since both the farmers purchased the seed of same variety, that is, P-1460, having same batch/lot number, the variation in the seed as mentioned in the reports (Exhibits C-4 and C-7) creates doubt with respect to the authenticity of the reports. So, on the basis of these reports it is not possible to hold that the seed supplied by M/s Sahib Seeds Limited to the complainants was adulterated and caused any loss. The District Forum fell in error in allowing complaint and as such the impugned orders cannot be allowed to sustain.

10.    In view of the above, appeals No.988 and 989 of 2015 filed by M/s Sahib Seeds Limited-Opposite Party, are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaints are dismissed. Consequently, appeals No.1019 of 2015 and 127 of 2016 filed by the complainants for enhancement of compensation are dismissed. 

11.    The statutory amounts of Rs.20,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeals No.988 and 989 2015 (each) be refunded to M/s Sahib Seeds Limited, against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 06.06.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL