Haryana

Karnal

245/2013

Phool Kumar S/o Khazan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dahiya Seeds Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.245 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.17.5.2013

                                                              Date of decision:31.03.2017

 

Phool Kumar son of Shri Khazan Singh, resident of village Raipur Jattan, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.   

1.M/s Dahiya Seeds Corporation, New Anaj Mandi Road, Gharaunda District Karnal through its proprietor Shri Jaswant Singh.

2. M/s Janak Seeds, 89, New Anaj Mandi, Indri, District Karnal through its prop/partner.

 

                                                                                 ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh.S.S.Moonak Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Subhash Chander Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                    Sh. R.K.Kamboj Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased two bags of 10Kgs each of paddy seed of PR-114 Variety, from the opposite party no.1, for Rs.500/-, vide bill no.1275 dated 19.5.2011. He was assured that the seed was of best quality and would give best yield. He raised nursery from the said seed and planted the same in his agricultural land measuring seven acres, in accordance with the norms of agricultural practice as advised by the officials of Agriculture Department. He also used necessary recommended fertilizers and other nutrients and necessary pesticide. However, the seed did not grow up as per the expectation and it was found that the seed sold by opposite party no.1 was mixed with other types of inferior quality of seed. He approached opposite party no.1, who visited the fields and enquired into the matter. He was assured to be compensated, but no compensation was paid to him. He moved an application to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal in the month of September, 2011. The Officials of the department inspected his fields and made report, according to which the paddy seed supplied by opposite party no.1 was found to be mixed with 65-66% of other varieties. He alongwith his brother Ram Chander again approached opposite party no.1 and requested for paying compensation, but the opposite parties postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly threatened him with dire consequences. Due to supply of inferior quality of seed he suffered loss of Rs.10,000/-per acre for fertilizer, nutrients and pesticides etc. The income from his crop could be Rs.50,000/-60,000/-per acre in the normal course. However, due to supply of inferior quality of seed by opposite party no.1, he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complaint is bad for  non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law; that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the seed of PR-114 variety was supplied by opposite party no.1 to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 purchased the seed from Janak seeds, Indri, vide bill dated 1.5.2011 and sold the same in packed condition to the complainant. Yield of crop depends upon many factors like quality of soil, weather, supply of water, rain and proper application. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1.

                   Lateron, when the case was at the stage of evidence of the opposite parties, none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 on 10.1.2017, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against it.

3.                Opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint is bad for non-compliance of the provisions of section 13(1)( c) of the Consumer Protection Act and that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no.2.

                   On merits, it has been denied that the seed prepared by opposite party no.2 was of mixed variety. It has been pleaded that the opposite party no.2 prepared and sold good quality seed. There was no such complaint except by the complainant in respect of the seed of the same batch. Mixing of the seed could be possible due to old seed already in the land, where the nursery was prepared or due to the preparation of nursery by the side of other variety of seed. Sometimes old seed comes out in the land on at sowing time in the next season and sometimes due to the fault of unskilled labour and Grower also the seed of the two varieties gets mixed. Such hard fact can be ascertained only through laboratory test. However, no laboratory test was got done by the complainant. No notice from the office of Deputy Director Agriculture was received by opposite party no.2 regarding alleged inspection of the fields of the complainant. In fact, there was no mixing of any variety in the seed of PR-114 variety prepared by opposite party no.2. In this way, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no.2.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party no.2 affidavit of Krishan Lal Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant had purchased two bags of 10Kgs each of PR-114 variety seed of paddy from opposite party no.1, vide invoice no.1275 dated 19.5.2011, the copy of which is Ex.C1. He planted the said seed in seven acres of land. When the crop grew up he found that there was mixing in the seed. He got inspected his crop from the team of Experts constituted by Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal. As per the report of team of the Experts, the copy of which is Ex.C2 65-66% plants of other varieties were found, which were in grain formation and tall.

8.                The opposite party no.1 has admitted about the sale of the paddy seed to the complainant. It is also not in dispute that the seed was prepared and packed by opposite party no.2.  The opposite party no.2 has asserted that the quality of the seed prepared and packed by it was as per standards and there was no mixing at all. The main plank of the complainant is the report of the team of Technical Experts constituted by Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal. As per the said report the committee observed the off type plants which were measured by random square meter method and concluded that there were 65-66%. Other variety plants which were in grain formation and tall all. It is emphatically clear from the report that there was no problem of germination of seed sold to the complainant by opposite party no.1, but other varieties were found mixed in the seed of PR-114. No doubt the team of Technical Experts did not join any person of the opposite parties before carrying out the inspection, but the report cannot be discarded merely on this ground. All the members of the team were officers of Agriculture Department and it could not be expected from them to give false report. The allegation of the complainant that he  approached opposite party no.1 complaining about the quality of the seed, finds support from his affidavit. Even otherwise, a farmer, who is going to suffer loss on account of inferior quality of seed or mixing of other variety seeds, would certainly complain to the person from whom the seed was purchased. Thus, the opposite party no.1 was having opportunity to inspect the field of the complainant and report about the existing condition of the crop to opposite party no.2, who could also get inspected the crop from the experts, to find out as to whether there was any mixing in the seed or not. However, no step was taken by the opposite parties. Therefore, no reason to ignore the report of Technical Experts of Agriculture Department.

9.                In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, it is established that there was mixing of other varieties in the paddy seed sold by opposite party no.1 to the complainant and mixing was found to the extent of 65-66%. However, the report of Technical Experts of Agriculture Department does not indicate that other varieties plants had different timings of maturity than the plants of PR-114. This fact cannot be ignored that due to mixing of other varieties seed the yield and quality of the paddy would have been certainly affected upto some extent and such mixed paddy crop could not fetch the same market price as PR-114 could fetch. Under such circumstances, the complainant must have suffered loss and the opposite parties are bound to compensate him, as the loss due to sale of mixed variety seed. The complainant had planted paddy in seven acres of land from the seed of PR-114 purchased by him from opposite party no.1, which was prepared and packed by opposite party no.2. Looking into the facts and circumstances, it would be reasonable to assess the loss of Rs.8000/- per acre i.e. total Rs.56,000/- to the complainant.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.56,000/- to the complainant  as compensation for loss due to mixed seed of paddy supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:31.3.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member