BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.67/17.
Date of instt.:03.03.2017.
Date of Decision: 14.11.2017.
Rajesh, age 36 years, s/o Shri Ram Sarup, resident of Village Khurana, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- National Seeds Co. Ltd., Office at Jind Road, Kaithal.
- Ujala Seeds, Ramba Chowk, Indri Road, Karnal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Shri Umesh Bura, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Kabir Dhall, Adv. for the opposite parties No.1 & 2.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 28.4.2016, he purchased 4 bags each of 30 kgs i.e. 1.20 qts seeds for sum of Rs.3900 + Rs.1120 as tax, total amounting Rs.5020/- of P.R. 114 vide bill No.249 dt. 28.04.2016 from Op No.1. It is alleged that the above-said seed was sown in 10 acres and when the paddy crop was grown-up fully, then the complainant found that the plant in his fields were mixed-up of other variety other than the PR-114. It is further alleged that the complainant moved an application to Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Kaithal, who constituted a team of agriculture experts and the said team inspected the paddy crops on 06.9.2016 and found that 6.66% plants are existing other than the PR-114. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; that Ops have sold the lot of seeds in question PR-114 in the market after due certification of seed in question vide Certification No.397060 dt. 29.8.2016 of Haryana Seed Certification Agency (A State Government Undertaking); that the complainant; that the germination and yield of the seed depends on various factors like the time of sowing, type of soil, practices adopted for sowing, the quality, the time and manner of application of insecticides and pesticides and in the absence of all these facts, it cannot be ascertained about the cause of alleged less germination or uneven germination or loss; that no alleged inspection of the crop has been made in the presence of the Ops by agriculture department and that the compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act has not been made in the present case. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.CA, Mark CA & Mark CB and closed the evidence on 09.8.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; document Mark RA and closed evidence on 26.10.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence available on the file.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased 4 bags each of 30 kgs i.e. 1.20 quintals seeds for a total sum of Rs.5020/- of P.R. 114 vide Memo No.249 dt. 28.4.2016 (Ex.CA) from Op No.1. It is contended in the complaint that the above-said seed was sown in 10 acres and when the paddy crop was grown-up fully, then it was found that the plant in his fields were mixed-up of other variety other than the PR-114. It is further contended that as per report of inspection committee dt. 06.9.2016, there was mixture of 6.66% plants. On the other hand, the Ops controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint that the complainant did not follow the instructions issued by the Ops and the report from the expert is a performa type.
6. In view of facts and circumstances of the case and on appraisal of pleadings of both the parties, we found that the complainant has placed on file copy of inspection report (Ex.CA) and in the said report, it is reported by the inspection committee that in the said land of 10 acres, there were 6.66% mixed plants and there may be loss about 6% to 7% due to mixed variety of seeds. These contents of the report Ex.CA clearly indicate that the seed purchased by the complainant from the Op No.1 was not of good quality and there was a mixing in the seed. In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective and nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. So, the contention of Ops regarding compliance of the provision of section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has no force. In this context, we can rely upon the authority reported as M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and others, 2012(1) ACJ page 265 (SC). The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of present case. On perusal of bill dt. 28.4.2016 (Ex.CA), whereby the complainant had purchased 4 bags each of 30 kgs i.e. 1.20 quintal PR-114 seeds for a total consideration of Rs.5020/- from Op No.1, but the batch number has not been mentioned by Op No.1 in the said bill. Being seller of seeds, the Op No.1 should mention the batch number in the bill. The Ops produced Certificate Mark RA issued by “Haryana State Seed Certification Agency” in which Lot No.:Oct.15-07-336-07 is mentioned. So, the Op No.1 had sold to the complainant the seed of PR-114 without mentioning the batch number of the seed vide bill No.249 dt. 28.4.2016. Thus, it cannot be said that whether the Op No.1 has sold the original seed of the company i.e. Op No.2 to the complainant or not. Hence, we exempt the liability of Op No.2 and held that the Op No.1 was deficient while rendering services to the complainant. The complainant has not proved on the file by cogent evidence that how much loss he has suffered. In these circumstances, in our view, the ends of justice will be met if the complainant is awarded the compensation of Rs.1,000/- per acre.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly qua Op No.1 and direct the Op No.1 to refund Rs.5050/- ‘as costs of paddy seed and to pay Rs.1000/- per acre (Rs.1000/- x 10 acres) i.e. total amounting to Rs.10000/- (ten thousand) as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant. The Op No.1 is also burdened to pay Rs.1100/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Let the order be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.14.11.2017.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
Present : Shri Umesh Bura, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Kabir Dhall, Adv. for the opposite parties No.1 & 2.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even date, the present complaint is partly allowed qua Op No.1. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:14.11.2017. Member Presiding Member.
