Haryana

StateCommission

A/942/2017

SHIPRA SEEDS - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN CHAUHAN

12 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                                               First Appeal No.942 of 2017                                            Date of Institution: 07.08.2017

Date of Decision: 12.03.2019

M/s Shipra Seeds, Kavi Road Madlauda, District Panipat, through its Proprietor Sh.Chetan.

…..Appellants

Versus

1.      Karan Singh S/o Sh.Molad @ Moldu, R/oVillage Nindana,Tehsil Meham Distt. Rohtak.

…..Respondent

2.      Haryana Khad Bhandar, Azad Market Meham, District Rohtak through its partner/proprietor.

3.      Aggarwal Pesticides Subji Mandi Gate, Near Petrol Pump, G.T. road, Karnal-132001 through its partner/proprietor.

…..Performa Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

Present:              Shri Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for appellant.

                             Mr. Neelam Nehra, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                             None for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that on 23.05.2014, complainant purchased one packet of paddy seeds phusa-6 of 10 KG and 2 kg louse from another packet of same phusa-6 amounting to Rs. 1200/- from the opposite party No.1.  The seed was manufactured by O.P.No.2.  O.P.No.3 has purchased the seed from O.P.No.2 and sold to O.P.No.1.  As per the instructions, the seed was sowed for the purpose to enhance the yield of the paddy.  The complainant has spent Rs.1,99,237/- on 2.5 acres of land, but, the seed was not properly grown. The crop of the complainant was of three varieties. On the request of the complainant, committee of three agriculture experts was formed.   The committee inspected the field of the complainant on 24.09.2014 and submitted his report dated 10.10.2014 which reveals that there was mixing of different variety of seed upto 45-50% and farmers has suffered heavy loss due to defective seeds.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      O.Ps filed separate reply controverting his averments and  O.P.No.1 alleged that  after purchase of the seeds, the complainant never met with the O.P.No.1 nor there was any complaint regarding the seed from any customer.  The complainant has not suffered the loss of Rs.2,00,000/-

3.      O.P.No.2 filed separate reply and alleged that there was nothing on record that complainant purchased the seed produced by answering opposite party.  The complainant purchased two varieties of seeds i.e. 1121 and Pusa No.6.  The claim of the loss was incorrect.

4.      O.P.No.3 filed separate reply and alleged that as per demand of complainant and his choice, sold the seeds. Neither complaint of defective seed was filed by the complainant nor met with answering respondent.  O.P.No.3 sold the seed to the complainant in sealed condition.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.3.

5.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 10.07.2017 and  directed the O.P.No.2-manufacturer to pay a sum of Rs.40,400/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 16.10.2014 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.

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

7.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Parveen Chauhan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Neelam Nehra, Advocate for the respondent No.1. 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 complainant had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      In fact as per the matrix of the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that complainant had purchased 10 kg. paddy seeds of Rs.1200/- from O.P.No.1  vide invoice No.1830 dt. 23.05.2014. The seeds did not grow as per the instruction.  The paddy seed had been purchased by the complainant was not of good quality and there was a mixing  in the seed and as per the report of committee, which is constituted by Agriculture Department, the complainant had suffered loss of crop due to defective seeds i.e. 55-60%. 

9.      The O.P.Nos.1 and 3 has further sold some other quality of the seeds to the complainant from the professional store, the person or the dealer  which is running the store at Meham, Distt.Rohtak as well as Aggarwal Pesticides at Karnal. The complainant had purchased lesser quantity of the seeds from O.P.Nos.1 and 3.  The manufacturer has only sold 40 kg bag to the dealers, whereas the complainant has purchased 10 KG louse paddy seeds from O.Ps.No.1 and 3.  Since the paddy seed had been purchased by the complainant was not of good quality and there was a mixing in the seed and as per the report of committee, which is constituted by Agriculture Department, the complainant had suffered loss of crop due to defective seeds i.e. 55-60%. 

10.    In the considered opinion of this Commission, when no seed has directly been sold to the dealer i.e. O.P.No.1 and it is only been sold through O.P.No.3-Aggarwal Pesticides and it is not mentioned as two different variety of the seed has been sold by the O.P.No.3 to O.P.No.1 and as such, learned District Forum illegally liable the manufacturer i.e. O.P.No.2 to pay the  compensation of Rs.40400/- alongwith 9% interest, whereas it is only the performa respondents i.e. Haryana Khad Bhandar, Azad Market Meham, District Rohtak through its partner/proprietor and      Aggarwal Pesticides Subji Mandi Gate, Near Petrol Pump, G.T. road, Karnal-132001 through its partner/proprietor are responsible if any cause loss to the complainant.   The O.P.No.1-Sipra Seeds (Manufacturer) is exonerate, since the O.P.No.1 is exonerated, only the performa respondents are liable to pay the compensation granted by the District Forum.  The sole responsibility and the negligence is fasten against the performa respondent Nos.2 and 3 in appeal

11.    With this above modification, the appeal stands disposed off.

12.    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.

March 12th, 2019                           Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                          Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

 S.K.