Haryana

StateCommission

A/963/2017

HI TECH KAMBOJ SEEDS STORE - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRITAM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

NAMIT KHURANA

25 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                       First Appeal No.963 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution:10.08.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 25.07.2022

M/s Hi-Tech Kamboj Seeds Store, Shop No.19, Opposite New Grain Market, Indri (Karnal) through its proprietor namely Mangat Ram S/o Sh.Bhagirath.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Pritam Singh S/o Jai Singh, R/o Vill. Chaushala, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

2.      M/s Punjab Seeds Store, near Kanwar Sain Chowk, Railway road, Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for appellant.

                   Mr.Mohan Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                   Respondent No.2 already ex parte.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that on 20.06.2015, complainant purchased three bags of paddy seeds of Marka Muchal 1401 (Weighing 10 KG each) from opposite party (OP) No.1 for a sum of Rs.1200/- (Rs.400/- each bag) for sowing and planting the same in his land.   The OP No.1 assured that seeds will give yield of at least 40 to 50 maunds per acre. He sowed the seeds in eight acres of land  and after germination, he noticed that plants were of different heights. The seed sold by OP No.1 were not pure and were of mixed quality or variety.  He approached OP No.1  and request him to visit his field but he did not relent. Following this he moved an application to Deputy Director of Agriculture Department, Kaithal to solicit their opinion regarding this situation.  On 26.10.2015, the team of agriculture department inspected his fields and reported that   40 to 45% plants of paddy were of different varieties and due to this the quality of the basmati paddy has been adversely affected to a great extent.  Due to this reason, complainant has suffered loss of Rs.3,20,000 in respect of crops and Rs.1,00,000/- as financial loss besides Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. The OPs sold the sub-standard and mixed seeds to the complainant which amounts to deficiency  in service on their part.

2.      O.Ps. filed separate written statements. O.P.No.1 alleged that no prior notice was sent to it before inspecting the field.  The complainant purchased the seeds from OP No.2.  The lots of seeds  before releasing into the market are mad to undergo various tests and examinations only then the same are released for sale in the market as per Seed Act.   As per norms of the Agriculture University, 8 kg of paddy seeds is recommended for sowing in one acre of land, however, he had sown 30 kg of seeds in 8 acres of land, which shows that complainant had mixed some other seeds with the purchased seeds. The complainant was not entitled to any compensation. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP.

3.       O.P.No.2 in its reply submitted that OP No.2 has never sold the variety of seeds.  As per norms of Agriculture university, 8 kg seeds per acre were required, however, the complainant purchased and sown 30 kgs of seeds in 8 acres of land. The present complaint was filed on the basis of presumptions that seeds were mixed. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.2.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (In short “District Commission”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 21.06.2017, which is as under:-

“Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances we reached at a conclusion that if the complainant had been able to receive full amount of crop in 8 acre then he might have received Rs.2,00,000/- but s per the report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-2) the complainant had suffered loss to the tune of 40 to 45% of crop, therefore, the end of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to pay Rs.80,000/- in lump sum, for the loss  suffered by him along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint  till its realization which shall be paid by the OPs jointly and severally.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.2-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      The arguments have advanced by Sh.Namit Khurana, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.Mohan Singla, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. With their kind assistance the entire record of appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.       It is not disputed that the complainant purchased 30 kgs seeds from the O.P.No.1. It is also admitted that upon complaint, a committee was constituted by agriculture department. Though, there is a report prepared by the officials of the Agriculture Department (C-2) which clearly reveals that  there was a mixing of 40-45% of the seeds and complainant has suffered loss to the tune of 40-45%.

8.      In fact as per the matrix of the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that complainant had purchased seeds from O.P.No.1.  It is also not disputed that the above said seed were sown in his land. Since the seeds purchased by the complainant were not of good quality,  that is why there was poor germination of the crop due to mixing of seed.  Since inspection report Annexure C-2 reveals there was mixing of other seeds in DP Muchal 1401 quality of seeds to the extent of 40 to 45%.  The report issued by Agriculture department cannot be ignored.  The learned District Forum has adequately and properly compensated the complainant and directed the O.Ps. to pay Rs.80,000/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization which shall be paid by the OPs jointly and severally.

9.      In view of the above observation and discussion, no illegality could be found with the order  dated 21.06.2017 passed by learned District Commission,  Fatehabad vide which the complaint was allowed and as such, the appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent No.1-complainant-
Pritam Singh against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

11.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room.

 

25th  July, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member    

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)