Haryana

Kurukshetra

141/2017

Gurdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sohan Lal - Opp.Party(s)

B.R.Saini

04 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.141 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 21.07.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:04.02.2019.

Gurdev Singh son of Sh. Niranjan Singh, resident of Village Isharheri, Block Babain, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Sohan Lal Aggarwal, Fertilizer, Pesticide, Seeds Dealer & Commission Agents, 52, Partap Mandi, Shahabad Markanda, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.
2. Company of Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, Surajmukhi Seed in question to be disclosed by the respondent No.1.

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Naresh Pal Kharindwa, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                OP No.1 exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Gurdev Singh against M/s. Sohan Lal Aggarwal, the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased 9 bags of Surajmukhi Seeds (Sunflower Seeds) for a sum of Rs.8550/- at the rate of Rs.950/- per bag from the Op No.1 vide bill No.50260 dt. 29.03.2017.  It is alleged that the complainant sown the said seeds in 7 acre of land situated at Village Isharheri, Distt. Kurukshetra.  It is further alleged that the said seeds which were supplied by the Op No.1 were not genuine and the plants were also not genuine.  The complainant moved application to the Agriculture Department and joint committee/team of Agriculture Department visited the fields of complainant in 7 acre land and vide report dt. 06.06.2017 observed that there was loss of 50-55% in the said land in which 9 bags of sunflower seeds purchased by the complainant from the Op No.1.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Op to pay Rs.2,40,000/- for the loss of crops alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 04.09.2017.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased 9 bags of Surajmukhi Seeds (Sunflower Seeds) for a sum of Rs.8550/- at the rate of Rs.950/- per bag from the Op No.1 vide bill No.50260 dt. 29.03.2017, copy of bill is Ex.C1.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said seed was defective and he suffered loss due to defective seed.  The complainant has placed on file the inspection report of Agriculture Department, Ex.C3 and in the said inspection report, the committee has reported that they inspected the 7 acre land of the complainant on 01.06.2017 and the committee assessed the loss about 50-55% in 4 acre and about 45-50% in 1½ acre land and so far as remaining 1½ acre land is concerned, the complainant had already cultivated the crop.  The complainant has supported his versions in the affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12.  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops did not appear and proceeded against exparte.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  In the present case, we assess the loss as per calculation mentioned below:-

Total land where loss caused	Expected yield	Expected Rate	Loss	Total loss
5½ acre	10 Quintal per acre	Rs.3950/- per acre	Rs.3950/-x10 quintal=Rs.39,500/-x about 50%loss (as per report,Ex.C3)=Rs.19,750/- per acre	Rs.1,08,625/-(Rs.19,750/-x 5½ acre)

 

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte and direct the Ops to pay Rs.1,08,625/- as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges.  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.:04.02.2019.

  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.