Haryana

Kurukshetra

56/2016

Sanjay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tarsem Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Taneja

29 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint Case No.56 of 2016.

Date of instt. 23.02.2016. 

                                                                         Date of Decision:29.11.2018.

Sanjay, aged about 45 years, son of Shri Sat Pal, Tehsil Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                                                ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. M/s Tarsem Kumar & Company 25, New Anaj Mandi, Ismialabad, District Kurukshetra through its Proprietor/Manager.
2. M/s Spriha Bio Science Private Limited, 227-A, Road, No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033 through its Managing Director.

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before          Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.

                   Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:        Sh.  Ajay Taneja, Adv. for complainant.

                    Sh. D.S.Kirmach, Adv. for Op No.1.

   Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. for OP No.2.

           

ORDER

                      Earlier, the present complaint was filed by the complainant in District Consumer Forum, Kaithal which was disposed off by the said Forum on 27.11.2015 with the direction to complainant to approach the proper Forum/court of competent jurisdiction.  So, the present complaint was filed in this Forum by complainant Sanjay Kumar against M/s. Tarsem Kumar & another, the opposite parties.    

2.              Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased 8 Bags of Paddy seed Pusa-1121 bearing batch No.44495008 for a sum of Rs.500/- each i.e. total Rs.4,000/- vide bill No.2353 dated 24.5.2014 from Op No.1.  At the time of purchasing the said seed, the Ops assured that the seed is of very good quality and the complainant would get good yield of paddy crop. The complainant under the supervision and guidance of specialist officials of the Agriculture Department and instructions, packages and practices of paddy crops sown the said seed in 7 acres of land and when the crop was near maturity, the seed was found of sub standard and mixture of various varieties.  Some plants were of dwarf height and some were of long height and when the crop came at the panicle stage, it was found that some plants of the crop were matured at early stage and in some plants maturity was late. The complainant immediately approached Op No.1 and complained about the crop and requested to visit the fields but he did not pay any heed. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Kaithal and a team of experts visited the fields of complainant on 18.9.2014 in the presence of complainant and after inspecting the crop, they submitted a report mentioning therein that 30% to 35% plants of crop were mixture and other varieties instead of delivered and sown Pusa-1121, therefore, the purchased seed after deformity of purity in deliver variety.  The complainant visited the office of Ops and requested to compensate but they did not pay any heed. Thus, complainant claims Rs.90,000/- as loss of yield, Rs.4,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.4,500/- as litigation expenses.  Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant.

3.             Upon notice, OPs appeared.  OP No.1 contested the contested the complaint by filing the written statement raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and as such, he is not entitled for any compensation; that the true facts are that the answering OP has given the bags of seed to the complainant in seal packing and thus there is no fault on the part of answering OP. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

4.            OP No.2 contested the complaint by filing the separate written statement raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(i)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and without compliance of the same the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  As per the above provision, where the complaint alleges a defect in goods, which cannot be determined without proper analysis or tests of goods and the District Forum shall obtain as sample of goods from the complainant, seal it and refer the goods to the appropriate laboratory for testing, but in the present complaint the said procedure has not been followed which is mandatory in nature; even the germination of yields of seed depends on various factors like time of sowing, type of soil, practices adopted etc. and in the absence of all these facts, it cannot be ascertained about the cause of alleged less germination or even germination of loss. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

5.            In support of his case, the counsel of complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.             On the other hand, the counsel of Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex.RW2/A and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.2.  The counsel of Op No.1 made statement that the written statement filed by the Op No.1 may also be read as evidence on behalf of Op No.1.

7.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant purchased 8 bags of Paddy seed Pusa-1121 from the Op No.1.  The complainant sown the said seed in the land measuring 8 acres.  The counsel of complainant further contended that when the crop was near maturity, the seed was found of sub standard and mixture of various verities. Some plants were of dwarf height and some were of long height. The complainant immediately approached the Op No.1 and complained about the crops and requested to visit the fields of complainant.  The complainant also moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal and the committee constituted by Agriculture Department gave the report, Ex.C2 and in that report, the committee mentioned that 30-35% crops was mixed of variety.  This cause damaged to the crop of complainant due to defective seed and so, compensation may pleased by awarded to the complainant.  The counsel of complainant placed reliance upon the case law titled as M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and another, bearing civil appeal No.7543 of 2004, date of decision: 16.01.2002 (SC). 

9.             On the other hand, both the learned counsel for the Ops contended that the total yield of the crop depends on many reasons. Firstly it depends upon weather and how to cultivate the land.  The counsel of Op also contended that the complainant should have saved the sample of that seed to send the laboratory for testing.  The third contention of counsel for Ops is that in Haryana, it is mandatory instructions of Director of Agriculture, Haryana that the fields of the farmer are to be inspected by Committee comprising of two officers of the Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and the Ops.  Both the counsel of Ops further contended that the present complaint is not maintainable here because in this case, the Seed Act is applicable and the complainant should have approach before the Civil Court, so, the complaint may please be dismissed.  The counsel of Ops placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2017(1) CLT page 339 titled as Mithan Lal Vs. M/s. Ramditta Mal Des Raj (Punjab State Commission); 2016(4) CLT page 507 titled as Prerna Vs. M/s. Seed Works India Pvt. Ltd. (NC); 2013(2) CPJ page 617 titled as Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company & another (NC) and 2015 (1) CPJ page 530 titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop (NC).    

10.            From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on perusal of file, we found that it is not the fault of consumer, who has bonafidely  purchased the seed from the Ops and that seed was not properly germinated.  It is also not the fault of consumer that the Agriculture Department did not comply with the provisions of Govt. Instructions.  It is  visible from the report, Ex.C2 that 30-35% crops of complainant was of different variety which caused financial damage to the complainant.  We can rely upon the order titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Vijay Kumar & another decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 14.06.2018, wherein in para No.16 of the said order, it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission “The failure to follow the said procedure cannot be fatal to a complaint, filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, the failure of the Seed Inspector or for that matter District Level Enquiry Committee, to follow the said procedure, cannot lead to dismissal of a Consumer Complaint, if the complainant is otherwise able to prove his case.  In this regard, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that there is no way a farmer can compel the seed inspector or the committee to follow the procedure prescribed in the Seeds Rules or the rules framed in circulars, if any, issued thereunder.  There will be no justification for penalizing the farmer for such a failure on the part of the Seed Inspector or the committee”.  So, keeping in view the ratio applied by Hon’ble National Commission in the said order, we are of the considered view that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and there is gross deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  The authorities submitted by the counsel for complainant are fully applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas the authorities submitted by counsel for the Ops are not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.  So, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, we assess the loss to the tune of Rs.7,000/- per acre, therefore, the total loss comes to Rs.56,000/- (Rs.7,000/-x8 acre).

11.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.56,000/- as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  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.:29.11.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.