Haryana

StateCommission

A/483/2017

VIRENDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NIPUN VERMA

11 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                                               First Appeal No.483 of 2017                                            Date of Institution: 20.04.2017

Date of Decision: 11.07.2019

Virender Kumar s/o Sh. Jagdish Singh, r/o Village Nalwa, Distt. Hisar.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      National Seeds Corporation Limited (NSC) A Government of India undertaking, Beej Bhawan, Pusa Complex, New Delhi.

2.      Sonu Beej Bhandar Near Govt. Senior Secondary School Siwani Distt. Bhiwani (through its proprietor).

3.      M/s Jagdish Store, Tilak Bazar, Hisar.

….. Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

 

 

Present:              Shri Nipun Verma, Advocate alongwith Mr. M.R.Verma, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri.Amit Singla, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.

                             Mr.Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate alongwith Mr. Prikshit Dhull, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that on 16.06.2011, complainant purchased four bag of gawar cluster seeds of marka C/S/-II,  vide bill receipt No.1737 dated 16.06.2011 from the opposite party No.2-respondent  No.2 for a sum of Rs.592/-.   The O.P.No.2 was retailer of the above said seed. The O.Ps. assured about the good quality of seed.  He sown the seed in three acres of land , but, germination of the seed was very low.  He made a complaint to the Agriculture Development Officer for checking the Gawar crops, the official of the department inspected the crop of the complainant and found that the seed received by the complainant from respondent No.1 was of low quality.  Due to act and conduct of the O.Ps.-respondents, the complainant suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      O.Ps. filed separate written statement controverting his averments.    O.P.No.1 alleged that O.P.No.2 was not authorised dealer.  The complainant did not purchase the seed from the authorised dealer. The inspection made by the agriculture officer was not justified.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 and 3.

3.      O.P.No.2 filed separate written statement controverting his averments and alleged that the complainant has not made any complaint about the gawar seed to it.  The variation of condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of seed but it may be due to some other facts including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in the surface layer etc.    Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.2.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.03.2017.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Nipun Verma alongwith Mr. M.R.Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Amit Singla, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Mr.Tribhuvan Dahiya alongwith Mr.Parikshit Dhull, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. With their 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 the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      The only question involved which arises for adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the respondents have sold the inferior quality of seed to the complainant and he had sown the seed in his land, but, due to inferior quality of the seed, the growth of the crop was effected, as such, whether the complainant is entitled to get any amount of the compensation?

8.      In fact as per the matrix of the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that complainant had purchased gawar seeds from the O.P. No.2. for a sum of Rs.592/-.   It is not disputed that the O.P.No.2 sold of the seed to the complainant.  The Haryana State Seed Corporation Agency issued a certificate regarding the certification of the seed.  The perusal of inspection report clearly reveals that the complainant has not used KHAD in his field, as such, the germination of the seed was very low. The inspection was carried out after due notice to representative of the O.Ps. and scientists.

9.       When seed was also examined by the team of the experts, it was found to be less germinated and there was no fruit on the flower. The seed was purchased from the well recognized institutions namely Haryana Agriculture University Haryana and it is presumed that centre installed or run under the supervision of Haryana Agriculture University, quality of the seed would not be inferior, but, as per the report, the quality of the seed was sub-standard.  The complainant had not got the seeds tested from the laboratory as required under section  13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  He never moved an application before the concerned authority for getting the seeds tested from some laboratory. 

10.    It is not out of place to make a reference here that before instituting the complaint before the learned District Forum, Bhiwani a large number of representations were submitted by the persons to the different authorities, but, brought no fruitful results.  As per the parameters of the manufacturer, if the seed is sub standard, then the responsibility is fixed to the retailer, he may sell the sub standard seed to the other customers and the complainant might have purchased some other quality of seed from retailer.  Since as per the report  of the inspection team, the seed was sub standard, so the retailer is liable to pay the compensation. 

11.    The impugned order  dated 20.03.2017 is set aside and appeal as well as complaint is partly allowed. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, the report of the inspection, damage caused to the crop and the inferior quality of the seed, the complainant is found to be entitled to get the compensation of lumpsum of Rs.2000/- and resultantly the question is answered in affirmative.  There are no specific para meters to assess  the loss caused to the complainant, while in the interest of justice and equity, a lumpsum amount of Rs.2000/- as of compensation is granted to the complainant, which will be paid by the opposite party No.2-respondent No.2-retailer.   The amount is directed to be paid within a period of three months from the date of passing this order, failing which the  complainant-appellant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period.   

July 11th, 2019                                        Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                          Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

 S.K.