Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Paramjit Singh respondent No.1 is an agriculturist. He owns 12 killas of land in Village Bhuleria Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar. On 19.4.1999 Paramjit Singh respondent No.1 purchased seed of paddy PR-106 quality from respondent No.2 for an amount of Rs.560/- for which the bill was issued by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1. At the time of purchase respondent No.1 was assured by respondent No.2 that the seed was of very good quality and it would give high yield.

3. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 sowed the seed. The plants grew of different size and of different varieties. The seed was not of one quality. Respondent No.1 had spent a huge amount in various inputs like fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides but the seed being defective, respondent No.1 suffered a huge loss. It was brought to the notice of respondent No.2 but respondent No.1 was not heard. Rather he was insulted and turned out. Hence respondent No.1 filed complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "District Forum") for claiming compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs for financial loss and also as compensation for the mental tension, physical harassment interest and costs.

4. Respondent No.2 filed written reply. It was admitted that respondent No.2 was dealing in the business of sale and purchase of paddy seeds at Malout and that respondent No.1 had purchased 40 kilograms of paddy seed from his shop. However, the said seed was sold in a sealed pack/bag. The said seed was duly certified by the U.P. Government. The said seed bags were purchased by him from Kissan Beej Bhandar, Malout (respondent No.3). The said Kissan Beej Bhandar, Malout had further purchased these seeds from Pagia Enterprises, Industrial Estate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar (UP) (the present appellant). Therefore, Kissan Beej Bhandar, Malout and Pagia Enterprises were necessary parties and the complaint was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder.

5. It was further pleaded that the seed was got analysed by M/s Kissan Beej Bhandar, Malout from the Seed Analyst Laboratory, Ludhiana and the said seed was found as per the specifications. It was denied if the seed sold by respondent No.2 was of different variety or if respondent No.1 has suffered any loss due to alleged supply of misbranded seed. It was further denied if there was any loss in production of the crop. It could either be due to the failure of respondent No.1 for not taking the required precautions for sowing the seed or due to the inferior quality of the land. It was denied if less production was because of any defect in the seed sold by respondent No.2. It was denied if respondent No.1 ever lodged any complaint with respondent No.2 or if respondent No.2 used any rough language to respondent No.1 or if he was insulted and turned out. It was pleaded that the seed was packed in a bag and every bag contained the seal of the manufacturer firm as well as certificate of the U.P. Government. It was, therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

9. After the matter reached back the District Forum, respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for impleading Kissan Beej Bhandar, Gur Bazar, Malout (respondent No.3) and M/s Pagia Enterprises (the appellant) as parties. The said application was allowed by the learned District Forum vide order dated 10.12.2004. As a result the appellant and respondent No.3 were impleaded as parties.

10. After appearance, Respondent No.3 (Kissan Beej Bhandar, Malout) filed written statement. It was denied if respondent No.1 was a consumer of respondent No.3. It was, however, pleaded that respondent No.3 had purchased 400 bags of certified paddy seed variety PR-106 on 13.4.1999 from M/s Pagia Enterprises (the appellant). It was also admitted that M/s Zimidara Beej Bhandar (respondent No.2) had purchased 20 bags of paddy seed of 30 kilograms each measuring 6 quintals bearing lot number Pagia Seeds on 17.4.1999. Therefore, respondent No.1 had no cause of action against respondent No.3 and the complaint was liable to be dismissed qua respondent No.3. It was further pleaded that respondent No.3 had purchased sealed bags of paddy seed and the same were sold in the same position. Therefore, there was no role of respondent No.3 nor any service was provided by respondent No.3 to respondent No.1. Therefore, the question of deficiency of service did not arise. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.