Haryana

Kurukshetra

243/2017

Nirm Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Varun Pesticides - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Kalra

08 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

        Complaint No.243 of 2017.

        Date of instt.:13.11.2017.                    

        Date of Decision:08.11.2019.

 

Nirm Pal son of Shri Prithvi Singh, resident of village Ratgal, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. M/s Varun Pesticides & Seeds, Shop No.68A, New Anaj Mandi, Pipli, District Kurukshetra through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.

 

2. Crystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office: 206, 2^nd Floor Span Trade Centre, Opposite Kocharb Gandhi Ashram Nr. Paldi Char Rasta Paldi, Ahmedabad- 380006 and also having office at B16/1236, Opposite Gold Gym, G.T. Road, Bye Pass, Near Namaste Chowk, Karnal through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.
3.  

                       ………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.

 

Present:     Shri Pardeep Kalra, Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Vijay Tanwar, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.           

 

ORDER

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Nirm Pal against M/s Varun Pesticides & Seeds & other, the opposite parties.

2.            The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is earning his livelihood by doing the agriculture work. That he had purchased 9 bags of paddy seed of speed variety of lot No.PHL6125113 from the OP No.1 vide bill No.394 dated 19.5.2017 for a sum of Rs.6300/- and the same is manufactured by OP No.2. That at the time of purchase of the aforesaid seed, the OP No.1 assured the complainant that the seed is of very good quality and will yield good crop of paddy. It is further averred that he sown the said seed in seven acres of his land and took all the precautions of sowing of the crop and other subsequent precautions and incurred more than Rs.30,000/- for sowing and management of the crop. When the plants grew up, he came to know that the seed is not of good quality, rather it is mixed & substandard seed and due to that reason, some of the plants did not nourish properly and only few plants nourished and remaining plants remained unnourished. Thereafter, he filed an application dated 28.9.2017 to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra for inspection of the fields. The officers from the Agriculture Department alongwith other agricultural experts visited his fields on 29.9.2017 and they gave their report about their inspection vide which they have mentioned that 39% plants are not growing and standing unnourished. That due to the mixed and substandard seed supplied by OPs, the complainant only get yield of 110 quintals 62 Kgs. 500 grams, out of seven acres, whereas, the average yield of paddy crop is 30-32 quintals per acre and if standard and proper seed would have been supplied by the OPs, the complainant would have get yield of total 210 quintals of paddy. Thus, the complainant has obtained less yield of crop to the extent of 99 quintals and has suffered a loss of Rs.1,57,410/- on account of less yield of crop and also suffered loss on account of expenses incurred by the complainant and the total loss suffered by complainant is estimated to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. That he approached the OPs to pay the compensation and initially the OPs assured to compensate him, but later on, flatly refused to do so. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding locus standi; maintainability; cause of action and jurisdiction. It is stated that there is no document to prove that the alleged purchased seeds were sown by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has not attached the testing report of soil, fertilizer, water and other material used in the field, without which, the present complaint cannot proceed and liable to be dismissed. There is no other complaint of any other farmer in this regard. It is further submitted that complainant has not attached all the original document/ bills with the complaint nor supplied any documents/ bills to OP No.1. It is further submitted that complainant has not complied with the direction, specification and instructions of the company regarding sowing of seeds by not preparing the field properly, by not irrigating the land properly, by not putting fertilizer properly and other instructions. It is further submitted that the alleged report is false, fabricated, manipulated in collusion with the officials of Horticulture department by the complainant without any notice to OP no.1. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

                Opposite Party No.2 failed to appear despite notice and was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence available on the file.  

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased 9 bags of paddy seed of speed variety from the OP No.1 on 19.5.2017 and sown the same in seven acres of his land while taking all the precautions of sowing of the crop. He further argued that when the plants grew up, the complainant found that only few plants nourished and remaining plants remained unnourished. Upon his application dated 28.9.2017, the officers from the Agriculture Department alongwith other agricultural experts visited his fields on 29.9.2017 and they gave their report to the effect that 39% plants are not growing and standing unnourished. Due to the mixed and substandard seed supplied by OPs, the complainant only get yield of 110 quintals 62 Kgs 500 grams from seven acres instead of total 210 quintals. Thus, the complainant obtained less yield of crop to the extent of 99 quintals and suffered a loss of Rs.1,57,410/-.          

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 also reiterated all the contents mentioned in the written statement. He argued that the complainant had not attached the testing report of soil, fertilizer, water and other material used in the field. He further argued that there is no other complaint of any other farmer in this regard. The complainant had not complied with the direction, specification and instructions of the company regarding sowing of seeds by not preparing the field properly, by not irrigating the land properly, by not putting fertilizer properly and other instructions. He further argued that the alleged report is false, fabricated, manipulated in collusion with the officials of Horticulture department by the complainant without any notice to OP No.1 and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant purchased 9 bags of PHL6125113 seed from the OP No.1 for a total sum of Rs.6,300/- vide bill No.394 dated 17.5.2017 Ex.C-1. In the Inspection Report Ex.C-3, the inspection committee has reported that they inspected four acres land of complainant and found that there was mixing of two varieties in the ripen crop and 39% plants are not growing and standing unnourished. They further reported that at that time, the proprietor of M/s Varun Pesticides & Seeds, Pipli was also called at the field of the complainant. These contents of the report Ex.C-3 clearly indicates that the seeds purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1, was not of good quality and there was mixing of two varieties in the said seed. Since the proprietor of OP No.1 was called at the time of inspection, therefore, the contention of OP No.1 that the OP No.1 was not called at the time of inspection, has no force. It is pertinent to mention here that in the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective and nothing remains with him, which could be tested in a laboratory. So, the contention of OP No.1 regarding compliance of the provision of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has also no force. In this context, we can rely upon the authority reported as M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and others, 2012(1) ACJ page 265 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that "It is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. On the other hand a senior officer of the Government had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective”. Keeping in view the above facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the seed provided by the OPs to the complainant was not of good quality and there was mixing of two varieties in the said seed. Hence, the OPs have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.             In the present case, the complainant has produced Form-J as Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5 and demanded Rs.1,57,410/- as loss suffered by him, but we assess the loss as per calculation mentioned below:-

 

 

Total land	Expected yield	Expected Rate	Loss	Total loss
7 acres	24 Quintal per acre	Rs.1590/- per acre	Rs.1590/- x 24 quintal=Rs.38,160/- x 39% loss (as per Inspection Report Ex.C3)=Rs.14,882/- per acre	Rs.1,04,174/-(Rs.14,882/-x 7 acres)

 

                So the OPs are liable to pay the said amount of Rs.1,04,174/- to the complainant alongwith the compensation and litigation charges.

10.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To pay the amount of Rs.1,04,174/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and         physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith   litigation expenses.

 

                The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:  

Dt.08.11.2019.                                                    (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President

 

                (Sunil Mohan Trikha)          (Neelam)

                          Member                 Member