Haryana

StateCommission

A/743/2015

SAHIB SEEDS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATISH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

08 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    743 of 2015

Date of Institution:    09.09.2015

Date of Decision :     08.03.2017

1.     M/s Sahib Seeds Limited, Branch Office, Cotton/Mirch Mandi Road, Tohana,Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad through its Proprietor.

2.     M/s Sahib Seeds Limited, Head Office, SCF No.11, New Sabji Mandi, Karnal, through its Managing Director.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Satish Kumar s/o Sh. Ishar Ram, Resident of Ward No.6, Moonak, District Sangrur.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

Argued by:          Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          M/s Sahib Seeds Limited-Opposite Parties have filed the present appeal against the order dated April 3^rd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Satish Kumar-complainant/respondent, was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay an amount of Rs.52,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. The complainant was also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint in case the amount was not paid within a period of one month.

2.                The complainant purchased four bags of Paddy Seeds (each containing 10 Kgs) of P-44 variety from opposite party No.1, the authorized dealer of opposite party No.2, vide Invoice No.902 dated April 29^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-1) for Rs.1,000/-. The seeds purchased were sown for preparing nursery and thereafter, as per instructions of the opposite parties; plants were re-transplanted in four acres of land owned by him within the revenue estate of Village Moonak, District Sangrur. When the crop was at vegetative stage, the complainant noticed that only 40% plants were got matured earlier and remaining plants were having no fruit/flower. All it happened due to sub-standard and adulterated seeds purchased by the complainant. The complainant approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Lehragaga, who directed Quality Control Inspector, Lehra Gaga and Subject Specialist Agro, Fatehabad to inspect the fields of the complainant. The paddy crop of the complainant was inspected by Dr. Varinder Singh, Agriculture Officer and few others on September 9^th, 2013 in the presence of Kesram and Chhaju Ram. The inspecting team opined that there was 50% loss to the paddy crop of the complainant.  

3.                It is evident from the reports of the agriculture officers that the complainant had to suffer financial loss to the extent of 50% due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties. It was opined that only 40-45% crop ripened and plants were having fruits/flowers and remaining plants were likely to be ripened after a period of more than 45 days. The agriculture officers also made observation that the complainant shall have to spend extra amount of Rs.8,000/- per acre for harvesting of the matured paddy crop plants. In their reports (Exhibit C-6 and C-7), total loss of crop due to sub-standard seed was assessed 100 Maunds (40 Quintals) per acre being 50% of the average yield of paddy crop in the area. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,94,400/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum due to loss suffered by him and compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and humiliation.

4.                The version of the opposite parties in this case is that the complainant is not entitled to receive any amount as claimed in the complaint because the grains of paddy crop grown by use of the alleged seeds have not been produced by the complainant and even no ‘J’ Form regarding sale of the alleged seeds has been produced. The opposite parties have also taken plea that yield of the crop apart from seeds quality depends upon appropriate climatic condition, type of soil, irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients and effective use of fertilizers etc. Moreover, proper germination of the seeds itself shows that there was no defect in the quality of the seeds.

5.                As per reports of the agriculture officers (Exhibits C-6 and C-7) and other record on the file, findings can be safely given that the complainant suffered a monetary loss of an amount of Rs.52,000/- due to poor quality of seeds. The reports of the agriculture officers appear to be well reasoned and were prepared after collecting complete information regarding rates of paddy in the market in those days as well as after proper investigation regarding 50% loss of the crop.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties urged that the yield of paddy crop depends upon type of soil, irrigation facilities, use of nutrients and fertilizer etc.  This Commission is not much impressed with this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties because as per facts of this case, there was no problem regarding germination of the seeds. The seeds were used for preparing nursery and thereafter for re-transplantation of the plants in the agriculture land.  The complainant first time noticed that he purchased the seeds of poor quality when only 40-45% plants got matured and started bearing rice grains. The remaining plants, as per expert opinion, were likely to get matured after more than a period of 45 days. The complainant had to cut and remove the paddy plants which got matured and due to this reason there was decrease in production. Apart from it, the complainant had to spend an amount of Rs.8,000/- per acre for harvesting of the matured paddy crop plants. It does not appear that all it happened due to lack of irrigation facilities, due to climatic condition or use of fertilizer etc. The photographs (Exhibits C-8 to C-12) produced in evidence clearly show that there was no problem of germination or growth of the plants.  In this situation, findings can be given very easily that the problem as mentioned above arose due to inferior quality of seeds and adulteration.

7.                Exhibit C-2 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 and Exhibit C-13 is the copy of Khasra Girdawari regarding Kharif crop, 2014. These documents have been produced to show that the complainant was co-owner in possession of the total agriculture land measuring 176 Kanals-12 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of Village Munak qua 1/3^rd share and the land was used for paddy crop during Kharif season. There is no reason to disbelieve the opinion given by Dr. Varinder Singh, Agriculture Officer and other officials regarding monetary loss caused to the complainant due to purchase off the inferior quality of seeds.  During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties urged that seeds of the same quality were sold to few other farmers of the same village also but none of them filed any complaint regarding poor quality of seeds. Affidavits (Exhibit RW1/A, R-3 to R-5) of Ram Niwas, Gursewak Singh, Sukhvinder Singh and Avtar Singh, respectively; and receipts (Exhibits R-6 and R-11) regarding purchase of seeds by the above mentioned farmers have been tendered in evidence by the opposite parties. In the considered view of this Commission the claim of the complainant cannot be declined merely on the ground that the other farmers of complainant’s village, who had purchased the same seeds from the opposite parties, did not file any complaint.

8.                As per discussions above in detail, this Commission has no hesitation in holding that the findings given by the District Forum are valid, correct and justified. The complainant had to suffer monetary losses as mentioned in earlier part of this order due to sub-standard paddy seeds supplied by the opposite parties. Findings given by the learned District Forum stands affirmed. We find no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.

9.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 08.03.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL