Haryana

Karnal

CC/340/2016

Mahender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Uttam Seeds & Pesticides - Opp.Party(s)

Tilak Raj

03 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.340 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 3.11.2016

                                                         Date of decision:3.1.2018

 

Mahender Singh son of Shree Ram, resident of village Jhinverheri, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. M/s Uttam Seeds & Pesticides, shop no.33, Mahila Ashram Market, Karnal through its proprietor Sonu.                             

2. Sonu son of Shri Sher Singh, License No.1490, Proprietor of M/s Uttam Seeds & Pesticides, shop no.33, Mahila Ashram Market, Karnal.

3. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

             

 

 Present  Shri Tilak Raj Advocate for complainant.

               Opposite parties exparte.

               

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that he purchased 15 kg of paddy seeds variety Hybrid PB1509, vide bill no.302, dated 23.5.2016 amounting to Rs.625/-. At the time of purchasing the said seeds the OP no.1 assured that the said seeds provided to the complainant was very good quality and no disease would be affected the plants and also assurance of 25 quintals per acre crop. After purchase of the abovesaid seed he raised the Nursery by using the abovesaid seed and when the nursery ready, thereafter same was planted in the fields as per the norms and instructions of the OPs. The OP no.1 supplied the mixed seeds of inferior quality. He spared the pesticide and fertilizers time to time in the said crop as per the instructions of the OPs. Thus in this way the complainant had spent more than Rs.10,000/- per acre. It was surprised that the sown paddy was mixed with 1509 and 1121 paddy. He approached the OP no.1 and told about the situation of the paddy crop, but OP no.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, on 30.9.2016, complainant moved an application before the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal to inspect his agricultural land. Thereafter, the officials of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee and visited the land of the complainant and thoroughly examined the paddy fields on 13.10.2016 and found there was 35% off type/other varieties plants, which were in grain formation/tall/dwarf/panicle formation stage. The office of the Deputy Agriculture Karnal have assessed the loss just as formality whereas the seeds provided by the OPs were 35% mixed. Due to supply of inferior, sub standard and mixed quality of seed he had suffered loss to the tune of Rs.80,000/- per acre. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but none has appeared on behalf of the OPs no.1 and 2 and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 2.2.2017.

3.             OP no.3 appeared on notice and filed reply on 6.4.2017 in the shape of a letter stating therein that on 4.10.2016 a complaint was received from the complainant Mahinder Singh regarding mixing of paddy seed and thereupon on 6.10.2016 a committee was constituted. The committee inspected the field of the farmer on 13.10.2016 and after preparing the report, the same was given to the farmer. It is pertinent to mention here that on 16.11.2017 when the case was fixed for the evidence of OP no.3, nobody has appeared on his behalf and OP no.3 was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 16.11.2017.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 27.4.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.             The complainant had purchased 15 Kg of paddy seeds variety PB-1509 from opposite party no.1, vide bill no.302, dated 23.5.2016 for Rs.625/-, the copy of which is Ex.C4. He planted the said seed in 2.5 acres of land. When the crop grew up he found that there was mixing in the paddy crop. The complainant moved an application Ex.C2 to the Agriculture Department Karnal, on which Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal had constituted a committee for the inspection of the field of the complainant. The team of Experts constituted by Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal has inspected  the field on 13.10.2016 and gave its report Ex.C3.  As per the report of team of the Experts there was 35% off type/other variety plants which were in grain formation/tall/dwarf/ panicle formation stage and due to uneven ripening there may be approximately 35% loss in the paddy yield.

7.             The allegation of the complainant that he approached opposite party no.1 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, but no step was taken by the opposite parties and these allegations of the complainant 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. Therefore, no reason to ignore the report of Technical Experts of Agriculture Department. On the other hand to prove his contention OPs did not appear and proceeded against exparte. Thus, the evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged against the OPs no.1 and 2, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

8.             In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, it is established that there was mixing of other varieties in the paddy seed sold by OPs no.1 and 2 to the complainant and mixing was found to the extent of 35%. 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 pure PB-1509 could fetch. Under such circumstances, the complainant must have suffered loss and the opposite parties are bound to compensate him, as the loss was suffered due to sale of mixed variety seed. The complainant had planted paddy in 2.5 acres of land from the seed of PB-1509 purchased by him from OPs no.1 and 2. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that it would be reasonable to assess the loss at the rate of Rs.7000/- per acre i.e. total Rs.17,500/- to the complainant.

10.           As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.17,500/- to the complainant as compensation and to refund Rs.625/- the cost of the seed. We further direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the abovesaid amount will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:03.01.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                       (Anil Sharma)

                            Member