First Appeal No. 881 of 2016. Case: Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals and Ors. Vs Gurmeet Singh. Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case Number:First Appeal No. 881 of 2016
Party Name:Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals and Ors. Vs Gurmeet Singh
Counsel:For Appellant: Manish Verma, Advocate and For Respondents: Shivcharanjit Singh, Advocate
Judges:J.S. Klar, (Presiding Member (J)) and Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Issue:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 2(i)(d)
Judgement Date:April 10, 2017
Court:Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

J.S. Klar, (Presiding Member (J)), (Chandigarh)

  1. The appellants have directed this appeal against order dated 07.10.2016 of District Consumer Forum Ferozepur, directing the appellants to pay Rs. 44,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 1.1.2016 till realization, besides Rs. 8,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent Gurmeet Singh of this appeal. The appellants of this appeal are opposite parties No. 3 and 4 in the original complaint before District Forum and respondent of this appeal is the complainant therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

  2. The complainant Gurmeet Singh has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that, he being agriculturist, has taken the land of 8 acres on lease from Amarjeet Kaur widow of Virsa Singh and Ravneet Singh son of Virsa Singh, both residents of village Arniwala Sheikh Subham Tehsil and District Fazilka. He purchased seven packets of seeds i.e. BG Cotton two packets Mark 6588 BG II for Rs. 1740/- and three packets of 105 BG II Bioseeds for Rs. 2670/-, vide invoice No. 119, dated 10.5.2015 from OP No. 1 and two packets Super 6488 II for Rs. 1760, vide invoice No. 3677, dated 18.5.2015 from OP No. 2. He earned his livelihood from agricultural crops. He sowed the seeds in 3.5 acres of land out of above 8 acres land, as per instruction and specifications of OPs. He alleged in the complaint that due to defective seeds of OPs, the height of plants of cotton crops remained stunted at about 2-2 1/2 feet (60-75 cm) in 3.5 acre of land out of 8 acres, instead of, as per specifications given by OPs No. 1,2 and 3 that the height of the cotton crop plant would be 150-200 cm of quality seed of 6488 BG II. The quality of seed 6588 was assured to give the cotton crop of 150-200 cm. The complainant followed the proper instructions and took due care, but to not effect. The height of the cotton plants sprouted out of the above seeds remained dwarfed and stunted. The supplication of the complainant to OPs brought no fruitful result. He made the complaints regarding inferior quality of seeds sold to him and resultant damage of cotton crops over 3.5 acres of land, but no action was taken by OP No. 1 thereupon. The complainant moved an application to District Agricultural Officer Fazilka on 16.09.2015 in this regard, which was further marked to Gurmeet Singh Cheema ADO Fazilka and Sh. Amritpal Singh ADO Dabwala Kalan. They visited the spot and inspected the cotton crops of the complainant and submitted the report No. 346 dated 23.10.2015 to the higher authorities reporting that the height of cotton crops remained stunted at 2-2 1/2 ft. and the yield of cotton crop was about 50 kg per acre only. OPs No. 1 and 2 sold the inferior and substandard quality of seeds to the complainant against consideration. He suffered total loss to the tune of Rs. 2 lac due to inadequate yield of his cotton crop which was the direct cause due to sub standard quality of seeds sold to him by OPs No. 1 and 2. He requested the OPs to pay the compensation amount on account of damage of his cotton crops, but to no effect. He also served a legal notice upon OPs through Sh. Charanjeet Singh Bhullar Advocate on 10.11.2012 for damage to his cotton crops for the above reason. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in selling defective quality of seeds to him. The complainant filed complaint praying that Ops be directed to pay Rs. 2 lac on account of compensation for damage of his cotton crop due to substandard quality of seeds sold to him by OPs and further prayed for Rs. 1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as costs of litigation.

  3. Upon notice, opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed its separate written reply by raising preliminary objections that complainant admitted this fact that he purchased 7 packets of seeds of cotton of different varieties, manufactured by different companies vis-à-vis OP No. 2/M/s. Shri Ram Fertilizers and Chemicals, M/s. Bio Seeds Company, M/s. Mayhco from OP No. 1 on credit basis. The price thereof has not been paid by the complainant to OP so far. No killa number has been mentioned by the complainant, wherein seeds were allegedly sown by him. The complainant has not obtained the report from the recognized and authorized laboratory regarding inferior quality of above seeds sold to him. The complainant has not taken any opinion of expert to prove substandard quality of seeds. There was major attack of white-fly during above season and compensation was also awarded to the concerned affected farmers thereby, by the Punjab Government, so his complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has long standing dealings with OP No. 1 and he had been purchasing seeds, fertilizer and pesticides from it on credit basis for more than 10 years. The complainant has not made the payment of outstanding amounts to OP No. 1 so far. It was vehemently denied by OP No. 1 that inferior quality of seeds were sold to him. M/s. Uttam Kheti Centre purchased the seeds in question through M/s. Dahuja Pesticides Fazilka, which is an authorized dealer of M/s. Shriram Fertilizers and Chemicals. The complainant purchased seeds for commercial purposes only. The complainant himself alleged that he had taken the land on lease, which has shown that he took the same for commercial purposes and not for earning his livelihood exclusively. On merits, OP No. 1 controverted the...

To continue reading

Request your trial