State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pargat Singh vs Amandeep Singh on 10 March, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.514 of 2016
Date of institution : 05.07.2016
Date of order reserved : 06.01.2017
Date of decision : 10.03.2017
Pargat Singh son of Avtar Singh resident of village
Hansawala, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran
.......Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Amandeep Singh son of Baljinder Singh, proprietor of Aman
Kheri Store, Near Bharowal Spare Parts, Main Road,
Fatehbad, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran.
2. M.D. National Seed Corporation, Seed Bhavan, Pussa
Bhavan, New Delhi.
3. Director, Rajvan Seeds Corporation situated at O/s Hall
Gate Old Sabji Mandi Amritsar through its Director.
......Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 16.06.2016 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. H.S. Bath, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Sh. P.K Sharma, Advocate
For respondent No.3 : Ex-parte
F.A. 514 of 2016 2
SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER
ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran (hereinafter referred as "the District Forum") vide which Complaint No.83 dated 08.12.2014 was dismissed.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant against Respondents/OPs (hereinafter referred as OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(in short the Act) wherein complainant averred that he is an agriculturist and purchased 30 Kg seed of Pussa Basmati- 1509 from OP No.1 vide bill No.18 on 28.04.2014 for sum of Rs.3,150/-. OP No.1 assured that yield would be 27 Quintal per acre. Complainant had sown the purchased seed in 5 acre of agriculture land and spent Rs.10,000/- per acre on fertilizer, pesticide, diesel as well as on labour charges. Complainant was astonished to see that seed was of bad quality and paddy seed 1509 was mixed with other seed, therefore, mixed crop had grown which damaged the whole crop of basmati. Due to mix seed complainant suffered loss of Rs.50,000/- per acre. Complainant contacted OP No1 and requested to compensate the damage but all in vain. Complainant made the complaint to Agricultural Officer, Tarn Taran on 17.10.2014 and the same was marked to Block Agricultural Officer, Khadoor Sahib who inspected the spot and F.A. 514 of 2016 3 found that there was 40% mixed crop with Pussa Basmati -1121. Complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking following directions against OPs:
i) to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as award.
ii) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment;
iii) to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by OPs. OP No.1 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that complainant approached this OP and asked for seed of paddy Pussa Basmati- 1509. This OP had purchased the seed of paddy from OP No.3 i.e. Rajvans Seeds Corporation, Amritsar vide bill No.251 dated 26.04.2014 with packing of 10 kg. This OP never opened the seal affixed on the bags and sold 30 Kg Pussa Basmati -1509 to complainant on 28.04.2014 vide bill No.18 dated 28.04.2014 with the packing of 10Kg. On merits, it was admitted that complainant had purchased 30 Kg seed of Pussa Basmati -1509 on 28.04.2014 but denied that this OP had sold lower quality and mixed seed to complainant. No deficiency in its service on its part. Other allegations made in the complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP No.2 filed written reply and took the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable against this OP as complainant had not purchased the seed from it. As per the recommendation of Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, F.A. 514 of 2016 4 8-10 Kg seed was required to be sown in one acre land. After checking, grading, packing, sealing and testing in presence of technical officers, the seed is supplied in the market. There are about 8500 registered growers and 2800 distributors all over the country and have wide spread infrastructure seed facilities with 43 seed processing plants and having five seed testing laboratories all over the country. Complainant unnecessary harassed this OP by filling the complaint. On merits, it was pleaded that after testing by technical officers seed is supplied in the market and if there was any tempering with the seed, it would have been on the part of complainant or OP No.1. Other allegations of the complaint were denied being false and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. OP No.3 filed written reply and took the preliminary objections that this OP is dong the business of sale of branded seed of reputed companies on wholesale basis at Amritsar, OP No.1 had purchased some items including Pussa Basmati- 1509 and maize seed vide bill No.251 dated 26.04.2014 and this OP delivered the seed to OP No.1 in bags under the seal of OP No.2. OP No.1 also examined the seal on the bags at the time of taking the delivery. This OP had sold 2500 Kgs of Pussa Basmati- 1509 to different dealers in Amritsar District and no such complaint was received. Complainant was not a 'consumer' of this OP as it sold the seed to OP No.1 and not to the complainant. On merits, it was pleaded that OP No.1 had purchased the pussa basmati -1509 on F.A. 514 of 2016 5 26.4.2014 and before plantation complainant might have sown pussa -1121. Other allegations of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
7. In support of their allegations, the complainant tendered into evidence as affidavit Ex.C-1 and affidavit of Sh. Malkit Singh as Ex.C-2 along with documents i.e. Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-21 and closed the evidence. On other hand OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Amandeep Singh as Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence. OP No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.B.K. Dhiman Area Manager Ex.OP2/1 alongwith copy of authority letter as Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence. OP No.3 also tendered affidavit of Sh.Rajpal Singh, Director of Rajvans Seeds Corporation, Amritsar as Ex.OP3/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP3/2 to Ex.OP3/4 and closed the evidence.
8. After going through the allegations levelled in the complaint, written statement filed by OPs, evidence and documents brought on record, District Forum dismissed the complaint, as referred above.
9. Aggrieved with the order passed by the District Forum appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal. F.A. 514 of 2016 6
10. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
11. It was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that District Forum had failed to consider the report of Agriculture Development Officer, Tarn Taran where he specifically stated in his report Ex.C-5 that 40% plants were of different variety then Paddy Seed 1509. District Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no lab report regarding inferior quality of seed. It prayed for acceptance of the appeal and to set aside the impugned order.
12. On the other hand counsel for the OPs argued that District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint as complainant failed to prove that OPs had sold the inferior quality of seed to complainant. Agriculture Development Officer, Tarn Taran nowhere mentioned in his report that the seed was of sub- standard quality. It prayed for dismissal of the appeal and to uphold the impugned order.
13. Complainant purchased the seed of Pussa Basmati 1509 and sow the same in his 5 acre land but when the plants grew it came to his notice that the plants were of different heights and these were not of same variety i.e. Paddy seed-1509 . 40% plants were of different height which seemed to be Pussa Basmati 1121. Complainant reported the matter to Chief Agricultural Officer, Tarn Taran who deputed Agriculture Development Officer, F.A. 514 of 2016 7 Khadoor Sahib to inspect the land and he submitted the technical report dated 21.10.2014 after visiting the field of complainant Ex.C5 and reported that 40% plants are of different variety than Paddy seed-1509. Complainant proved on record photographs ExC14 to C-19 which show different types of paddy in the field of complainant and to prove this fact complainant has filed his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith affidavit of Malkeet Singh, Nambardar as Ex.C-2 wherein they deposed that due to mix quality of seed complainant suffered the 100% loss of paddy crop. OPs did not produce on record any certification of seed Pussa Basmati 1509 which was purchased by the complainant vide bill No.18 dated 28.04.2014 Ex.C-4. OPs did not produce any independent evidence to prove that the report of the Agriculture Development Officer was not as per the factual position. OPs could have examined seed from the Laboratory to prove that they did not sell the mixed seed to the complainant. Moreover, OP No.2 took the specific plea in its written reply para No.3 that after checking and grading by technical officers the seeds are packed, sealed and tested before its supply in the market. But no such test report has been placed on the record to prove that the seed was tested from any authorized laboratory. District Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint that there is no lab report regarding inferior quality of seed whereas, Lab report is not necessary when in the report of Agriculture Officer, Tarn Taran it has been reported that 40% plants are of different variety than F.A. 514 of 2016 8 Paddy seed-1509. The onus was on the OPs to prove that no mixed seed was sold to complainant. It is unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, the findings of the District Forum are not legally maintainable.
14. Complainant in his complaint has demanded that he suffered a total loss of Rs.50,000/- per acre therefore, Rs.3,00,000/- of five acre. As per para 2 of the complaint he stated that OPs had assured 27 quintal of yield per acre. If we take average yield of 25 quintals of per acre and average MSP of the Paddy of Rs. 1500 per quintal in this way it comes to Rs.37,500/- out of that mixed seed was to the extent of 40% and he suffered the loss to that extent only and not the total loss of his crop. 40% of this amount comes to Rs.15,000/- per acre and for 5 acre it will come to Rs.75,000/-. However, after adding the labour cost, inconvenience and physical and mental harassment and approaching the Court to get justice another amount of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded to the complainant, therefore, a sum of Rs.1 lac is ordered to be paid to the complainant on account of giving mixed seed of paddy 1509 as a result of that the complainant could not get proper yield of his crop, whereas this aspect was not properly appreciated by the District Forum.
15. Sequel to above, we partly accept the appeal. Impugned order is set aside and complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted with the direction to OPs to pay F.A. 514 of 2016 9 lumsum compensation of Rs.1 lac to the complainant on account of selling mixed paddy seed of Paddy 1509 to be paid jointly and severally by OP No.1 & 3. They are directed to pay the amount within 45 days after receipt of the order passed by this Commission, otherwise it will entail interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
17. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
(Surinder Pal Kaur)
th
March 10 , 2017 Member
SK
F.A. 514 of 2016 10