Order No. -21                                                                                                       Dt.- 30/03/2015

       Smt. Bina Choudhuri, Member

The record is taken up for passing final order.

This is an application u/s 12 of the C.P.Act 1986.

The fact of the case is that the complainant Nityananda Sarkar, being a petty peasant purchased 15(fifteen) packets of potato seeds on payment of  Rs.20,100/-(twenty thousand one hundred) from the opposite party, Sree Ram Potato Company on 08/12/2013, 13/12/2014 and 14/12/2013. Each packet contained more or less 50 kgs of potato seeds and seeds supplied by the potato were certified best quality, treated for being germfree. The complainant sowed the seeds within 3-4 days of purchase from the O.P. for cultivation of potato and hoped that at the end of season he would yeild not less than 100 bags of saleable potato per bigha of land and profits were calculated at 1,500 bags i.e. 7,500 at Rs. 8 per kg. on field fetching about Rs.3,50,000/-. But within one month of potato seeds, the plants, some of which had come up started wilting and then the complainant sought for advice of the Unisbisha K.P.S. and as such Dr. Asok Saha, Associate Professor of Agronomy, Uttarbanga Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Pundibari, Coochbehar visited the fields of the complainant and other peasants in that area, gave a detailed written report that the cause of wilting of the potato plants were seed borne diseases of bacterial wilt and remedy suggested for saving the rest of the plants incurred further cost to the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

But at the end the yeild was only 20 bags per bighai.e. about 40kgs of all.

The complainant in formed all matter to the O.P. and told him to bear with the loss but the  O.P. refused.  Hence this case.

The O.P. Sree Ram Company has contested the case by filing a Written Version  denying and disputing the allegations contained against him with a prayer for dismissal of the case.

The specific stand of the O.P. is that the present petition is not maintainable in the eye of law.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:-

1) Is the case maintainable in law & fact as alleged ?

2) Is the complainant a consumer as per provision of the C.P.Act 1986?

3) Is the O.P. guilty for Unfair Trade Practice as alleged?

4) Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayer for? 

DECISION WITH REASONS

         All points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

         Perused the pleadings, documents and written arguments filed by the parties and also heard the Ld. Lawyers of the parties and find that admittedly the complainant purchased 15 packets of potato seeds from the O.P. on 08/12/’13, 13/02/’14 & 14/12/’13 and each potato contained 50 kgs of potato seeds. But the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. vehemently argued that alleged seeds were germ free and the packets purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose not for his livelihood.

                In this point We have gone through the case record and petition of complaint but there is no whisper in the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant that he purchased the alleged seeds for his livelihood. On the other hand, in the complaint petition the complainant clearly stated that the quanta of seeds sold by the O.P. would yield not less than 100 bags saleable potato per bigha and profits were calculated 1,500 bags i.e. 75,000 kgs @ 8/kgs. On field fetching about 3,50,000/- at the end of season.

The Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. cited the following decisions:-

1. IV(2014)CPJ(NC)777
2. I(1996)CPJ(NC)239

and argued that the complainant is not consumer as because he purchased the alleged seeds for his commercial purpose and not for his perusal livelihood. Perused the decisions and came to a decision that the complainant is not consumer as per provision of section 2(d) of C.P. Act 1986.

             Further the Ld. Lawyer argued that as per mandatory provision of law 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act. neither the seeds were got tested from the laboratory nor any expert report showing that the seeds were inferior quality.

            In the present case it appears that the complainant did not produce any document to show that he sent the seeds for testing to any laboratory or the sample were taken by the competent authority to investigate the actual cause of the failure the crop/potato plants and also did not submit any report of analist. So, it can not be presumed that complainants’ field/land was inspected.

So, we came to a conclusion that the factum of complainant having suffered a loss due to the poor qualities seeds given by the O.P. has not been established by any cogent or convincing evidence.

          After due consideration of arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both parties we came to a conclusion that there is no question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice at all happened by the O.P. as alleged by the complainant and as such the complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

        All points are disposed of. Thus this case u/s 12 od the C.P.Act fails.

         Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

         that the case stands dismissed on contest without cost.

         Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost forthwith as per sec 5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules,1987.