Haryana

StateCommission

A/107/2016

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS - Complainant(s)

Versus

UDEY BHAN - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.ADHLAKHA

06 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

Appeal No.107 of 2016

Date of the Institution:22.01.2016

Date of Decision: 06.09.2017

 

Nuziveedu Seeds, Survey No.69, Kandlakoya, Medchal Mandal, Gundlaponchampally village, Rangareddy, District Andhra Pradesh, Pin-501401 through its Manager.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Udey Bhan S/o Roop Chand, R/o Village Palra, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar.

2.      M/s Aggarwal Pesticides, Subzi Mandi Gate, near Petrol Pump, G.T. Road, Karnal-132001 through its Proprietor.

                                                                             .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.D.S.Adhlakha, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for respondents.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Nuziveedu Seeds Survey – OP-2 is in appeal against the Order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Udey Bhan has been allowed, by issuing the following direction:-

“5. In view the aforesaid discussion and findings, it is observed that the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,01,600/-on account of loss of crop and a sum of Rs.5500/-on account of litigation expenses from the respondent No. 2 as in the present case, the respondent No. 1 is only the dealer who has sold the seed in the packed condition on commission bases and the respondent No. 2 being the competent authority for the marketing and packing of the seeds is only liable to make the loss good and pay the awarded amount to the complainant. It is made clear that if the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of passing of this order, it will fetch an interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.2.2014 till its actual realization. The complaint is disposed of accordingly”.

 

2.      Briefly stated, the Complainant Udey Bhan is a farmer and resident of village Palra, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar, who has 28 acres of his own land taken on patta / lease for crops of paddy. The complainant had purchased 28 bags x 5 Kgs of paddy Shalimaar NP-121 worth           Rs.14,000/-and 20 bags x 2 Kg. of Hy. Paddy Khusboo of Rs.15,800/-from the OP No.1 vide bill No. 2270 dated 12.5.2013. Slowly and gradually, the plants matured and the complainant noticed that the seed supplied by the respondent was contemplated/mixed one, hence, failure of crop was due to low yielding and defective seeds. Complainant being an experienced agriculturist took all precautionary measures but he did not see the expected result. He immediately informed the respondent as well as to the Agricultural Officer at District Level (Jhajjar) whereupon a team of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Jhajjar inspected his fields on 8.10.2013 and found that 65% of the plants were of the same character but the remaining 35% of plants were of different character which could result into contaminated and defective seeds. As a result, the complainant has suffered huge loss due to deficiency in service on account of supply of contaminated seeds due to 35% less crop as against the expected yield of 20 quintals per acre. Therefore, the complainant claimed Rs.15,00,000/-on account of loss of yield and other expenses by approaching the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance.

3.      In their reply, OPs pleaded that they had sold the seed of good quality and not of mixed seeds and the complainant might not have followed the instructions prior to sowing the seeds in his fields. Further, they were not informed about the Inspection and the Report of Agriculture Officer. Therefore, this was not binding upon the respondents, as such, there was no deficiency in service on their part. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas of the OPs and allowed the complaint qua OP No.2 by awarding the aforesaid relief.

4.      Against the impugned Order, the OP-2/appellants have filed the present appeal before us reiterating their same pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record,  from the perusal whereof it is evident that the complainant, who is a farmer of Jhajjar District had  purchased seed in question from OP No.1 at Karnal,  which had been sold to them by Nuziveedu Seed Private Ltd. – appellant. Since, after the thorough inspection made by the District Agricultural Officer, Jhajjar,  it has been proved that the seed supplied by the OPs to the complainant was of spurious and inferior quality, the learned District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the damage caused to the crop of the complainant was due to this deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The mere fact that the appellant Nuziveedu Seed Private Ltd.  has their Head Office outside  the territorial  jurisdiction of District Forum, Jhajjar they can  not escape their liability under the Consumer Protection Act. Section 11 of the Act clearly confers jurisdiction on the  District Forum at Jhajjar as the cause of action, has wholly arisen at Jhajjar where the land in question is situated,  seeds were  sown, the complainant resides and the District Agriculture Officer has inspected the fields and submitted the report about the seed supplied to the complainant being spurious an inferior quality. Consequently, we uphold the detailed and well reasoned Order passed by the learned District Forum and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.   

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

September 06th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.