Haryana

StateCommission

A/288/2015

SHAKTI VARDHAK HYBRID SEEDS PVT. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.CHUGH

09 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.288 of 2015

Date of Institution: 23.04.2015 & 25.03.2015

Date of Decision: 09.12.2015

 

M/s Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd, New Rishi Nagar, Hisar through one of its Director Ved Parkash.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

1.      Vinod son of Ram Singh Resident of village Ram Nagar Tehsil Ganaur District Sonipat.

2.      Lakra Beej Bhandar Beej Market, Near Bus Stand, Sonipat, through its prop.

         …..Respondents

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.P.K.Chugh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Parmod Parmar, Advocate counsel for the  respondents.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

1. M/s Shakti Vardhak hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd., respondent – appellant is in appeal against the Order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Sonepat, whereby the appellant  was directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the Complainant in lumpsum compensation.
2. Vinod - Consumer/ respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, Sonepat that the complainant purchased 3 KG Okra Hybrid Seeds at the rate of Rs.1200/- per Kg. vide bill No.230 dated 22.05.2013 from the appellant. The complainant took all the care and precautions in sowing said Prerna Okra Hybrid seeds. When the said crop of Okra became ready for harvesting, it was noticed that all the crop of Okra turned yellow and was found totally defective. The complainant approached the District Horticulture Officer and after inspecting the crop, he submitted his report that the Okra Crop of the complainant had turned yellow and unfit for human consumption. The complainant alleged that OPs have supplied sub standard seeds due to which he suffered the loss of Rs.1,00,000/-
3. According to OP-1, OP-1 has sold the seeds in question in sealed packet as it was packed by the respondent No.2 and the report of the Horticulture Department was not binding upon him.
4. OP-2 has denied the fact that the said seeds were of sub standard  or of inferior quality in any manner and if any defect developed in the crops, the same was only due to the sole negligence and carelessness on the part of the complainant himself. The respondent No.2 was never asked to join the inspecting team who allegedly inspected the fields of the complainant. The learned District Forum, however, allowed the complaint by awarding Rs.35,000/- as compensation.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. According to the appellants, it is a matter of common knowledge as well as based on the expert opinion of agriculturist and horticulturist that the successful growth of the plants does not necessarily depend upon the quality of seeds, but various other factors also. These factors include proper care and cultivation of the plants, use of proper and good quality of manure and pesticide, timely and adequate watering, removal of wild grass and weeds from the fields etc. We have seen the photographs of the fields of the complainant available on the record as well as the report of the District Horticulture Officer. It is evident from these documents that the crop was no doubt yellowish, but the same were surrounded by wild grass and weeds.
7. Moreover, in the report it is no where mentioned that the seeds were defective or sub standard. Further, there is no proof that the same seeds which were supplied by the appellant actually used by  the complainant.
8. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Haryana Seeds Development corpn. Ltd. V. Sandhu & Anr. II (2005) SLT 569= 11 (2005) CPJ 13 SC =(2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. V Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2428/2008 wherein it has been held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds.  
9. On these premises the learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the impugned order passed the learned District Forum deserves to be set aside.
10. On the other side, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently reiterated the contentions and conclusions of the learned District Forum on the basis whereof, the complaint has been allowed by awarding the compensation.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are in complete agreement with the appellant and find that there is no cogent evidence on record on the basis whereof it could be concluded that the seeds sold by the appellant had actually been sown by the complainant and the same were defective or sub standard.
12. So, crops turned yellow and was found badly defective, same were surrounded by wild grass and weeds. We are also satisfied that the crop got damaged due to the carelessness of the complainant. There being no deficiency in service or sale of defective and sub standard on the part of the appellant.
13.  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted and the impugned Order passed by the learned District Forum is set aside.    

 

December 09th, 2015

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.