Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that the complainant being agriculturist had purchased 11 packets of C.F.F-1 Jyoti (Cauliflower) from Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 two times i.e. firstly on 18.08.2017 vide bill No. 26998 for Rs.1750/- and secondly on 04.09.2017 vide bill No. 26227 for Rs.2100/- total amounting to Rs.3850/- and at the time of purchasing the said seeds, the Opposite Parties assured the complainant that the said seeds are of best quality and upto the mark. On 07.09.2017 the complainant sowed the said seeds in his fields for growing cauliflower. After some days, the complainant astonished to see that said seeds were not grown properly. On 13.09.2017 the complainant went to the shop of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and told that the said seeds are of inferior quality. On 14.09.2017 the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 sent their employees to inspect the field and after seeing the spot, told the complainant to approach Opposite Party No.1. Thereafter, the complainant also approached the Opposite Party No.1 in this regard, but nobody bothered. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties time and again to do the needful, but nothing has been done except giving false assurances. As a matter of fact, the complainant depends upon the agriculture income and due to defective seeds sold by the Opposite Parties, the crop of the complainant totally spoiled and he is on the verge of starvation. In this way, the Opposite Parties failed to supply the good quality seeds and the complainant suffered huge mental tension and harassment due to the deficiency, negligence and Unfair Trade Practice of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.1 lakh on account of loss suffered by the complainant as well as Rs.1 lakh on account of compensation for harassment, mental agony or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. None has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, hence Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte.
4. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is admitted that the complainant has purchased cauliflower seeds as per two bills mentioned in the complaint. The representative of the Opposite Parties visited the spot and have come to know that the complainant had sown the seeds in a small piece of land and after the growth of saplings they were to be transferred by him in a bigger piece of land. On inspection, the representative of the Opposite Parties found the seeds to have been fully germinated. Moreover, if the complainant alleges that he did not get the yield from the seeds then the fault lies in the mode of irrigation, fertilizer, kind of soil etc. Moreover, as per the complainant’s own admission, he had sown the seeds on 7.9.2017 which is a pre mature time for sowing as the rains/ over watering/ heat can damage the tender saplings and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R7 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
8. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statement and we have perused the rival contentions of the parties. It is not denied by the Opposite Parties that complainant has purchased 11 packets of C.F.F-1 Jyoti (Cauliflower) from Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 two times i.e. firstly on 18.08.2017 vide bill No. 26998 for Rs.1750/- and secondly on 04.09.2017 vide bill No. 26227 for Rs.2100/- total amounting to Rs.3850/-, copies of the bills are placed on record as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 which shows that the complainant had purchased the seeds in question from Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. The only contention of the Opposite Parties is that the representative of the Opposite Parties visited the spot and have come to know that the complainant had sown the seeds in a small piece of land and after the growth of saplings they were to be transferred by him in a bigger piece of land. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Parties because there is no difference of sowing the seeds in small piece of land or bigger piece of land. There is no logic in such contention of the Opposite Parties. The second contention of the Opposite Parties is that on inspection, the representative of the Opposite Parties found the seeds to have been fully germinated and further to get the yield from the seeds, it depends in the mode of irrigation, fertilizer, kind of soil etc. But bare perusal of the photographs produced by the Opposite Parties themselves as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 which fully proves that on different places of land, the seeds are seen to be germinated. Moreover, why the complainant himself will harm his own crop when he is spending huge amount to get good yield and as such, we hold that there is certainly deficiency in service on the part of all the Opposite Parties. Moreover, this District Consumer Commission relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as National Seeds Cooperation Ltd. v M. Madhusudhan Reddy, and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v Alavalapati Chandra Reddy, , to state that the onus to prove that the seeds manufactured are of good quality lies on the manufacturer as the farmers are not expected to store some of the seeds for future testing. So, from the entire evidence produced by the parties on record, it stands fully proved on record that the Opposite Parties have adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by selling the defective seeds to the complainant. On this count, the Complainant prayed for directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1 lakh on account of loss suffered by the complainant as well as Rs.1 lakh on account of compensation for harassment, mental agony, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of such amount appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against all the Opposite Parties and all the Opposite Parties are jointly or severally directed to refund the price of the seeds i.e. 3850/- (Rupees three thousands eight hundred fifty only) and to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousands only) as lump-sum compensation to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the awarded amount alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.11.2017 till its actual realization. Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana. All applications pending before this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint today at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
