Haryana

StateCommission

A/1560/2017

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASWANT AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

DIWAN S ADLAKHA

10 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                                               First Appeal No.1560 of 2017                                         Date of Institution: 18.12.2017

Date of Decision: 10.04.2019

Nuziveedo (Nuziveedu) seeds Ltd., Sy No.69, Kandlakoya, Gundlapochampali (Village), Medchal (Mandal), Ranga Reddy District Telengana, through its Chairman/authorized person.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Jaswant s/o Shri Yashpal R/o Village and Post Office Bhalaut, Distt.Rohtak.

2.      Naveen Pavdia Khaad Beej Co. (Bhalaut), Sonepat Road, Bhalaut through its proprietor.

…..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Manjula Sharma, Member

Present:              Shri D.S.Adlakha, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Sandeep Lather, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                             Ms. Ritu Nichani, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that he purchased packets of Nuziveedo seeds (Shalimar 121) from the opposite party No.1 of Rs.13200/- vide bill No.3040 dated 10.05.2015.  O.P.No.2 was manufacturer of the seeds.  The complainant had sown the seeds in his 36 kanal 6 marlas of land.  He spent Rs.21,000/- on one acre of land for hiring labour, planting, cost of hoeing, expenditure for diesel, various types of urea, the complainant spent Rs.5.25/- lacs for total land. The quality of seeds was not pure.  It was mixed with seeds of low quality.  Some plants were of low height and some plants were of long height.  He intimated the O.Ps and written complaint was also lodged to Deputy Director Agriculture Deptt. Rohtak.  Committee was constituted and the department officials visited the field of the complainant and observed that  crop  was of different quality/type from the seeds which were purchased by the complainant from O.Ps. were of inferior quality.  He requested the O.Ps. to pay Rs.12,60,000/- as damages.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      O.Ps. filed separate reply controverting his averments.  O.P. No.1 alleged that  he purchased the seed as per his desire.  O.P.No.1 denied that quality was not pure.  The complainant has not followed the proper instructions given on the pack at the time of using the seeds.   The inspection was made in the presence of O.P.No.1.  The complainant never complained to the manufacturer of alleged sees.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.1.

3.      O.P.No.2 filed separate reply.  It was denied that complainant purchased the seeds from the O.P.No.1 for sowing the same in the land.  O.P.No.2 also denied that seeds was not pure or it was mixed with seeds of low quality.  No notice of aforesaid visit of agricultural department was ever given to the answering opposite party.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.2.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 16.11.2017 and  directed the O.P.No.2 to pay Rs.2,26,500/-   alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till its actual realization as compensation to the complainant for the loss of crop and also to pay Rs.3500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P No.2.-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.D.S.Adlakha, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Sandeep Lathar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms.Ritu Nichani, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. With his kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that no notice has been received before visiting the field.  Notice must be given before visiting the field. The impugned order be set aside, appeal be allowed and complaint be dismissed as prayed for.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently argued that notice has been issued to the opposite parties well in time. Even, the respondent No.2  has also associated with the inspection team. The perusal of the inspection report confirms that crop was of different quality/type from the seeds which were purchased by the complainant from O.Ps. were of inferior quality.  The learned District Forum has rightly been compensated.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently argued that manufactuter-O.P.No.2 was liable to pay the compensation as  O.P.No.1 was only dealer and has sold the seeds to the complainant only.

10.    In fact, as per the matrix of the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that complainant had purchased seeds from the O.P.No.1.  It is also not disputed that  O.P.No.2 was manufacturer of the seed. It is also not disputed that before inspection, notice was issued to both the parties.  It is also not disputed that at the time of inspection, the O.P.No.1 was present.  There is  a violation of the directions issued by the Director  of Agriculture, Haryana which is Ex.RW2/C, even the report has been prepared in such a casual manner because the date is not mentioned, the officials of the department appears to be so casual, even they have not mentioned the details of the Agriculture field.  It has been inspected by them. Even, the respondent No.2  has also associated with the inspection team. The perusal of the inspection report confirms that crop was of different quality/type from the seeds which were purchased by the complainant from O.Ps. were of inferior quality.  Resultantly, in the interest of justice and equity, whatever the amount has been spent by the complainant is hereby allowed to be paid by the present appellant.

11.    After observation of the report of the committee, nothing is left to be discussed about this report. As per the report, the complainant has suffered loss due to poor quality of seeds. 

12.    In view of the above observation and discussion, the order passed by learned District Forum is modified to the extent that complainant would be entitled to get the litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- instead of Rs.3500/-.  Remaining order of the District Forum would remain same.  With this modification, appeal stands disposed off.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

April 10th, 2019  Manjula               Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                          Addlk. Bench          Addl.Bench                 

S.K.