M/S. Dharam Pal And Sons vs SOM PRAKASH

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.

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 practiceand 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. The District Forum awardedcompensation 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.

AGAINST the order of District Forum, the OPs preferred the first appeal, before the State Commission, which was also dismissed.

HENCE , aggrieved by the order of State Commission, OPs filed this revision petition. We have heard the Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the OP vehemently argued thatneither 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 Hon ''ble 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 Hon ''ble 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.

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: m

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. 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.