Haryana

Karnal

CC/56/2018

Joginder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mohan Seeds Company - Opp.Party(s)

Gagan Chaudhary

22 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 56 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 07.03.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 22.01.2019

 

Joginder Singh age about 70 years son of Shri Channan Singh, resident of village Nadana, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                                                             …….Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

M/s Mohan Seeds Company, Seed Market, Old Subzi Mandi, Karnal, through its partner/proprietor Mr. Pavitar Singh son of Shri Arjun Singh resident of Old Subzi Mandi Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Gagan Chaudhay Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri R.K. Chauhan Advocate for OP.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had purchased 2 bags of paddy seeds  (10 Kg per bag) of Marka PR-126 from OP for Rs.1600/- cash against the valid cash memo no.1257 dated 18.05.2017. Thereafter, complainant had prepared Nursery of the said paddy seed in his fields and thereafter he planted the said paddy in his 5 acre agriculture land, but it is strange that OP had sold the said paddy seeds PR-126 after mixing some other paddy seed and because of this reason the complainant had cased huge loss of Rs.2,00,000/- exactly. Then complainant approached the OPs and discussed the entire matter and on the request of the complainant OP inspected the field of the complainant and admitted his fault and felt sorry and OP promised to compensate the complainant for his financial loss. Thereafter, an inspection application was moved by the complainant to the office of Deputy Director of Agriculture, cum Farmer Welfare Department, Karnal and after receiving the complaint of the complainant, the office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, cum Farmer Welfare Department Karnal formulated a committee and inspect the fields of the complainant for submitting the actual and factual report about the complaint of the complainant and disclosed that OP violated the Rules of Seed Act Order, 1983 by selling the wrong seed to the complainant and OP caused a huge loss to the complainant. Complainant visited the OP so many times and requested to compensate him for his loss caused by him but OP did not pay any heed to his request. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; complaint is bad for want of requirement as provided u/s 13 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant had purchased the lesser quantity of seed as per recommendation. The recommendation of seed per Acre is 8 K.G. but the complainant admittedly had only purchased 20 K.G. Seed for 5 acre of Land against requirement of 40 KG Seed as per his own version mentioned in the complaint. So the complainant wants to take benefit of his own wrongs. It is further pleaded that the germination of the seed and mixing of seed variety in question is depending upon so many factors like fertility, quality and preparation of the land, mode of sowing of seed, whether and atmosphere, environment and ability and qualification of grower. It is not sown by the complainant that in which circumstances he has sown the seed in question and in which sessions and at what time he has sown the seed in question. Sometime the quality of land would affect the germination and quality of produce. It is further pleaded that sometime foreign seed and old seed come out in the land on its sowing time in the next session and some time due to the fault of unskilled labor and Grover also the seed of the two varieties can be mixed. For that the OP cannot be held liable. This hard fact can be ascertained only through laboratory test. There was no mixing in the seed in question and there is no complaint of mixing in any batch of seed in question. It was a big lot of seed there is no such complaint from any side is there except the present one. It is further pleaded that complainant has not produce the bill for the purchasing seed, hence there is no relation between them as consumer and supplier. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Tehal Singh Ex.CW1/B and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 12.09.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Pavitar Singh Ex.OPW1/A and closed the evidence on 7.1.2019.

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

6.             The case of the complainant is that on 18.05.2017 complainant purchased 2 bags of paddy seeds (10 Kgs per bag) of variety PR-126 from the OP for a sum of Rs.1600/- in total vide cash memo 1257. The complainant prepared nursery of the said paddy seeds and he planted the said paddy seeds in his 5 acres of land. It was strange on the part of the OP that OP had sold the said paddy seed PR-126 after mixing paddy seed of some other variety and complainant had caused a huge loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. Complainant discussed the entire matter with the OP and on the request of complainant, the OP inspected the field of the complainant and after going through the physical inspection OP has admitted his fault and felt sorry and OP promised to compensate the loss of the financial loss incurred by the complainant.

7.             Further, complainant moved an inspection application in the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal. The Deputy Director Agriculture-Cum-Farmer Welfare Department, Karnal formulated a committee, which inspected the fields of the complainant on 28.09.2017. The committee came on conclusion that the variety of paddy standing in the fields of the complainant does not match with the variety PF-126 and OP has violated the rules of The Seed Act, 1983 by selling the wrong seed.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the complainant has not arrayed the manufacturer of the seed in question and also failed to comply the provision u/s 13 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has purchased the lesser quantity of seed as per recommendation. The recommendation of seed per acre is 8 kg but complainant admittedly had only purchased 20 kg seed for 5 acre of land against requirement of 40 kg of seed. The germination of seed and mixing of the seed variety in question depends upon so many factors like fertility, quality and preparation of the land, mode of sowing seed, weather and atmosphere, environment and ability and qualification of the grower. The complainant may have sown the seed in question in ruff and tuff, and in unfertilized land and in wrong weather. Only due to that reason the mixing in the germination of the seed was there, otherwise the seed in question was OK and tested through the laboratories vide its germination and quality tests. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.             Admittedly, complainant purchased 2 bags of paddy seeds (10kg per bag) of variety PR-126 from the OP for a sum of Rs.1600/- in total, vide cash memo 1257. The counsel of the complainant argued that when the complainant found that the paddy seed in question is not the variety i.e. PF-126, which he purchased from the OP, he made complaint to the OP. The complainant moved an inspection application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal on which Deputy Director Agriculture cum Farmer Welfare Department, Karnal formulated a committee, which inspected the fields of the complainant on 28.09.2017. After the inspection of the fields of the complainant, the committee came to a conclusion that the variety of paddy standing in the field of the complainant does not match with the variety PR-126. Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal issued a show cause notice (Ex.C4) to the OP regarding mismatch of the variety of the paddy seed. Counsel of the OP argued that complainant failed to comply with the provision of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10.            The section 13 (1)(c) reproduced as under:

        “Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory alongwith a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, which ever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or suffer from any other defect and to report its finding thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may  be granted by the District Forum.”

 

As per the Section 13 (1)(c), if the complaint alleges a defect in the goods then the sample of the same is required to refer to the appropriate laboratory for an analysis or test, which ever may  be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect. But in the present case, there is no dispute qua the defect in the goods. It is case of the complainant that, the seed variety which was purchased by the complainant from OP was not the same, as complainant purchased the PR-126 variety and same was not the said variety as per the show cause notice (Ex.C4), issued by Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal to OP and copy endorsed to the complainant. In view of the above, we are of the firm view that OP had sold different variety of paddy seed instead of PR-126 as required by the complainant, and complainant also paid the amount of the PR-126 variety of paddy seed. Thus, OP is deficient in service.

11.            In view of the above observations, we party allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in total alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of the seed till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant for mental agony, physical harassment and towards litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with 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:22.01.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.  

 

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member