National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Dharampal & Sons & Ors. vs Som Prakash on 9 May, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI. REVISION PETITION NO. 4672 OF 2012 (From the order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No. 617/2012 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula) 1. M/s Dharam pal & Sons, Janta Bhawan Road Sirsa, Haryana Through its Proprietor Dharam pal 2. M/s Daftri Agro Pvt. Ltd. Bazaar Road, Seloo, District Wardha Maharashtra 3. M/s Agri Clinic & Agri Business Centre, Naya bazaar, Bhiwani, Haryana Through its Proprietor Vishnu Dutt Petitioners Versus Som Prakash D/o Village Budha Bhana, Tehsil & Dist. Sirsa, Haryana Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Nemo PRONOUNCED ON 8th MAY, 2014 ORDER
PER DR.
S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. The present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 04.09.2012 in Appeal No. 617 of 2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, State Commission). The State Commission dismissed the Appeal. The Appeal was filed against the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, District Forum) in Complaint No. 516/2008, whereby the complaint was partly allowed.
2. The Complainant, Som Prakash, an Agriculturist on 30.05.2008, purchased 8 packets of PRH-10 brand paddy hybrid seed, having batch no. DD07 5003 from M/s Dharam Pal and Sons, Sirsa, the OP-1 and paid Rs.4,560/- The complainant sowed the seeds in 6 acres, as per prescribed specifications and incurred expenses of Rs.2000/- per acre. After few days, complainant was surprised to note different types of plants, therefore, he approached the dealer (OP-1), and requested him to inspect the field and pay compensation for the poor yield, but the OP-1, turned a deaf ear. Thereafter, complainant approached Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, with a request to inspect the field and access the loss. The officers of Agriculture department inspected the field of complainant and submitted report that there was 30% admixture of plants and there was loss of 50% in yield. The complainant expected yield of 80 mounds i.e. 32 quintals paddy, per acre, i.e. Rs.35,200/-. The Complainant, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the dealer, distributor and manufacturer, filed a consumer complaint, seeking compensation of Rs.1,17,600/- for loss of the crop, Rs.4,560/- the price of seeds, Rs.50,000/- for harassment, hardship, fatigue, mental tension, pain and agony etc. and Rs.5,000/- as costs.
3. The District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.39,425/- and Rs.2,075/- proportionate cost of seed, fertilizer, irrigation, etc. He was also awarded Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation and Rs.1,500/- for mental pain and agony.
4. Against the order of District Forum, the OPs preferred the first appeal, before the State Commission, which was also dismissed.
5. Hence, aggrieved by the order of State Commission, OPs filed this revision petition.
6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the OP vehemently argued that neither the seeds were got tested from the laboratory nor any expert report showing that the seeds were taken by the Respondent and therefore both the Fora below committed perversity and illegality in passing the impugned order. He further argued that mandatory provision of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act has not been complied by the District Forum. Whether, the seeds manufactured by the Petitioner No. 2 and sold by the Petitioner No. 1 and 3 are of inferior or superior quality, has to be tested first, at the competent authority, which, in the present case, no verification or testing of the seeds, in question, were made, hence the District Forum and thereafter State Commission, both have acted without jurisdiction and thus committed illegality in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Also, both fora overlooked the provisions of Seed Act, 1968. Rule 23 A of Seed Act provides that, when a farmer makes a complaint, in writing, about the failure of his crop, due to the defective quality of the seeds, the seed inspector shall take the sample of the seed to investigate the cause of the failure of the crop and send the same to Seed Analyst for analysis. The counsel for OP put reliance upon the authority of Honble Supreme Court in case titled National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. 1(2012) CPJ 1(SC), wherein it has been observed by the Honble Apex Court that District Forum can call upon the Complainant to provide sample of goods if it is satisfied that defect in goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test.
7. We have perused the evidence on record, the report submitted by the committee constituted by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa. The contents of report is reproduced as below:
To, Deputy Director, Agriculture Sirsa.
Sub: Inspection report of Paddy field of Sh. Som Prakash, S/o Sh. Devki Nand of Village Budha Bhana.
Ref: Your office letter No. 4904-05 dated 24.09.2008.
In compliance of the above orders, babu Lal-Quality Control Inspector and Sukhdev Singh-Subject Expert (Agronomy), Sirsa, has jointly inspected on 25.09.2008 in presence of above mentioned Complainant.
Farmer has said that he, on 20.05.2008, purchased 24 kg. of PRH-10 Paddy Seed and sown in 6 acre of land but, when the small plants started growing from the seeds, due to mixture of different type of seeds, it caused loss to him.
We, jointly had inspected the field, where he had sown the paddy in 6 acre of land. In the whole field, the small plants have grown and the said Paddy Field, was about to ripe. However, out of which, 28 to 30% plants were 1 to feet longer than the main variety of plants and in that small plants started growing. In this way, upon seeing, it is clear that the said 28 to 30% plants were of different variety, because, while preparing the hybrid paddy seed, male and female plants are planted in rows and were propagated. If it is not looked after properly, then at the time of harvesting the seeds of the plants get mixed with the female seeds and may give the said results.
In this way, there is a possibility of loss of about 28-30% due to the bad quality of the seeds.
The report is submitted.
Sd/- Sd/-
Quality Control Inspector, Subject Expert (Agronomy) Sirsa. Sirsa
8. Thus, as per the report, it is clear that the Complainant had suffered loss in his paddy crop, to the extent of 50%, on account of substandard quality of seed sold to him by the OPs. There is nothing to label it as any ill-will by the members of the joint inspection team and the seller of the seed. The facts are different in the present case from the case which the OP relied upon.
9. The arguments advanced by Counsel for OPs are bereft of merit. Therefore, we are of considered view that the complainant has substantiated his allegation with cogent and convincing evidence. The OP was deficient in providing service. We do not find any infirmity in the order of State Commission. Hence the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
..
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(DR. S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Mss/01