Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is pronounced in open Commission.

BY - SRI. SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Party is a Proprietor and engaged in the business of seeds under the name and style of Chandipur Beej Bhandar. The Complainant is an experienced farmer who earning his livelihood from cultivation of paddy since childhood.

2. The Complainant purchased “Swarna Masuri & Kanak” paddy seeds from the Op for Rs.360.00 on 26.06.2019 against Cash Memo but, the Op deliberately, intentionally and willfully supplied another types of paddy by suppressing the actual fact for his gain which the Complainant subsequently came to know after some days from the day of transplant of paddy-shoot in crop land carefully which is within 22 to 25 days from the date of purchase by seeing the abnormal grown of the said paddy shoot with flower (sprouted) in the whole paddy land which is impossible in “Swarna Masuri & Kanak” seeds.

3. Therefore, the Complainant contacted the Op with a bunch of paddy-shoots as sample and called the Op to look the situation of the paddy field but, the Op avoided the same. 

4. Thereafter, the Complainant met the Op and made query regarding paddy seeds which is sold to the Complainant by the Op on 26.06.2019 and during that time the Op disclosed before the Complainant and other person, about the “Re-harsal” paddy seeds which is coming from other state and not as per the specification of the Complainant’s seed at all.

5. The Complainant ledged official complaint before the local Gram Panchayat, Block Agricultural Officer, Assistant Development Officer - ADO, Block Development Officer – BDO, Police Station at Chandipur as well as CAFBP Purba Medinipur.

6. The Complainant cultivate paddy by took loan from the local person. Total amount invested for the said cultivation was more than Rs.20,000.00 for cultivation of land measuring 01 Bigha. Due to the said damage, the Complainant got loss of huge amount and bound to purchase rice from the market for livelihood of his family. The loss and damages causes to the Complainant by the Op are more than 40 Mons / 1600 Kgs. of Rice which the Op intentionally and willfully neither compensated to the Complainant nor taken any proper steps after passing the cultivation period/harvesting session, in-spite of several request and reminders.

7. The Op misuses the good faith of the Complainant and deliberately, intentionally and willfully supplied/delivered wrong seeds and even not refunded the said amount which caused mental pain and agony due to unnecessary harassment by the Op.

8. As the Op is not interested in settling the genuine and legitimate claims, the Complainant prefer to move before this Commission for necessary redressal.

9. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 26.06.2019.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for :-

1. To pay Loss of Crops of Rs.40,000.00 with Interest to the Complainant by the Op.

2. To pay Compensation of Rs.50,000.00 towards harassment,    mental pain and agony, loss and damages of paddy and labour      etc.

3. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.10,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs.

10. Notice was duly served upon the Op but, the Op did not contest the case as such the proceeding of the case has ran ex-parte against it.

11. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

12. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Petition of the Complainant, Written Examination in Chiefs on Affidavit, Cash Memo, Local News Paper, Correspondences along with all papers and other supporting documents.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Op as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. In the instant case, the Complainant submitted a list of documents containing the copy of Cash Memo, Land Record, Certificate from the Gram Panchayat, Complaint Letter lodged before the Block Development Officer - Chandipur, ADO – Chandipur and Local News Paper Publication.

5. From the above submitted documents as well as submitted and unchallenged Written Examination-in-Chiefs on Affidavits by the Complainant, it is carefully observed that the Complainant was deprived and cheated for the act of the Op and therefore, he ran several government authorities with seeking help and remedy but, unfortunately he did not get any help from the said authority. In-spite of that the Complainant at that time preserved the sample of said abnormally growth paddy shoot flower. It is not expected that the Complainant will keep the abnormally growth paddy shoot flower and seeds for the eternal period. No step has been taken by said authorities for sending the disputed seeds for examination to any government laboratory to test the veracity of the allegation of the Complainant.

In the case of Consumer Protection & Guidance Society – Vs. – National Seeds Corporation – IV (2007) CPJ 192 NC it is held that - “the onus of providing the quality of the seed sold lies upon the seller since it cannot be expected that a farmer will retain seed to be used for testing as per Section 13(i)(c) in the expectation of crop failure. In the absence of the availability of seeds, an alternative method for testing has to be adopted. This includes an inspection by the experts from the agricultural department who have the requisite technical knowledge and experience in such matters.”

In the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. – Vs. – M. Madhusudhan Reddy 2012 (2) SCC 506 it was held that – “……. the consumer cannot be expected to preserve a portion of seeds for testing under Section 13. We may note that, even prior to this decision, the National Commission had in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. – Vs. – Guruswami and Anr. – 2001 CTJ 733 (CP) (NCDRC) expressed a very similar sentiment.” It had observed that, “if the petitioner company was little sensitive or alert to the complainant of the respondent/complainant, the situation might not have arisen.” 

6. In the instant case, the Op also has not shown their interest by attending and filing any objection against the claim of the Complainant. Moreover, in the News Paper the Op clearly admitted about the sale of “Re-harsal” hybrid paddy seeds to the Complainant whereas in the Cash Memo it is mentioned as “Gold” which is the short form of “Swarna Masuri & Kanak” seeds in English language. Therefore, it is evident that the Op deprived intentionally the Complainant by supplying/selling the wrong/defective seeds to the Complainant.

7. There is an instance of unfair trade practice on the part of the Op.

8. Now, coming to the matter of reliefs. The Op can’t get absolved from the mischief of unfair trade practice. So, we think it would be just and proper if we direct the Op to pay a sum of Rs.40,000.00 towards Value of Seeds, Loss of Crops, and Compensation of Rs.5,000.00 for harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costs within 30 Days from the date of this order.

1. Accordingly, both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.

10.  Thus, the complaint case succeeds.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-03 of 2020 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Op.

1. The Op is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000.00 towards Value of Seeds, Loss of Crops and Compensation of Rs.5,000.00 for harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costs within 30 Days from the date of this order. In default, the Op will be liable to pay Simple Interest @8% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

2. The Complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and to initiate a proceeding u/s 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

3. Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the Complainant free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

4. File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment.