First Appeal Nos. 880 and 920 of 2016. Case: Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals and Ors. Vs Rajinder Singh and Ors.. Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal Nos. 880 and 920 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Manish Verma, Advocate and For Respondents: Raman Goklaney, Advocate
JudgesJ.S. Klar, (Presiding Member (J)) and Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 2(i)(d)
Judgement DateApril 10, 2017
CourtChhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


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

  1. By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above- referred two first appeals, as they have arisen out of the same order dated 07.10.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ferozepur and, thus, can be disposed of together. The order shall be pronounced by us in main First Appeal No. 880 of 2016 titled as "M/s. Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals versus Rajinder Singh."

  2. First Appeal No. 880 of 2016 has been preferred by appellant against order of District Forum Ferozepur dated 07.10.2016 directing appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 3,19,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to respondent of this appeal, besides to pay Rs. 8000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 3,000/- as costs of litigation. Respondent of this appeal is complainant in complaint No. 516 instituted on 01.12.2015 decided on 07.10.2016 and appellant of this appeal is opposite party No. 2 therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience. Second connected First Appeal No. 920 of 2016 has been preferred by complainant now appellant of this appeal against order of District Forum Ferozepur dated 07.10.2016 for enhancement of amount of compensation. Respondents of First Appeal No. 920 of 2016 are the opposite parties in complaint No. 516 of 2015 and appellant of this appeal is the complainant in the complaint therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

  3. The complainant Rajinder Singh has filed complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he being an agriculturist purchased 51 packets of seed of B.G Cotton (Mark 6488 BG-II and 6588 BG-II), vide invoice No. 3651, dated 14.05.2015, invoice No. 3608 dated 16.05.2015, invoice No. 3663 dated 18.05.2015 and invoice No. 3841 dated 27.05.2015 in cash from OP No. 1. The said seeds were manufactured by OP No. 2 and complainant purchased the said seeds for 25.5 acres of land, out of this, 15.5 acres land has been taken on lease from Lovepreet Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, Manjeet Kaur widow of Sukhdev Singh, Gurvinder Singh son of Surinder Singh and Charanjit Kaur widow of Surinder Singh, all residents of Mandi Arniwala District Fazilka. The complainant sowed the seeds in 25.5 acres of land, as per instructions and specifications of OPs. Due to defective quality of seeds of OPs, the height of plants of cotton crops remained stunted at about 2-3 feet, which was not as per specifications given by OPs. The specifications given by OPs were that quality seed of 6488 B-II would make the height of cotton crop as 135-150 cm and quality of seed 6588-BG-II make the height of cotton crop as 150-200 cm. The complainant followed the proper instructions punctiliously and took due care for their nourishment, but to not effect. The complainant approached OP No. 1 in the month of August 2015 and made complaint regarding bad and defective quality of seeds and damage caused to cotton crops over 25.5 acres of land, but no action was taken by OP No. 1 thereupon. The complainant moved an application before District Agricultural Officer Fazilka on 16.09.2015, which was marked to Gurmeet Singh Cheema ADO Fazilka and Sh. Amritpal Singh ADO Dabwala Kalan. They visited the spot of cotton crops and inspected them in the field of complainant and submitted report No. 321 dated 30.09.2015 to the higher authorities reporting that height of cotton crops were stunted at 2-3 1/ft and the yield of cotton crop would be about 20-50 killo gram per acre only. The complainant had ploughed 5 acres of land as well. OP No. 1 sold the defective quality of seeds to complainant, manufactured by OP No. 2. The complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 10-12 lacs as total yield. The complainant requested the OPs to pay the amount on account of damage of cotton crops, as well as compensation, but to no use. The complainant also served a legal notice upon OPs through Sh. Sukhdeep Singh Gumber Advocate on 14.10.2015 for causing of damage to the cotton crops for defective seeds sold to him. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in providing defective quality of seeds to him. The complainant filed complaint praying that Ops be directed to pay Rs. 12 lac on account of compensation and damages suffered by the complainant due to inadequate yield on account of defective quality of seeds sold by OPs to him and further prayed for Rs. 10 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as costs of litigation.

  4. 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 76 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 field number of land has been mentioned by the complainant, wherein seeds were sown. The complainant has not obtained the report from the authorized laboratory regarding inferior and substandard quality of seeds. The complainant has not taken any opinion of expert witness and the seed in question cannot be proved as defective without this report. There was major attack of white-fly during above season and compensation was also awarded to the concerned farmers by the Punjab Government for that purpose, so the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has long standing dealings with OP No. 1 and he had been purchasing the seeds, fertilizers and pesticides from it on credit basis for more than 10 years. The complainant has not made the payment of outstanding amount to OP No. 1. It was vehemently denied by OP No. 1 that inferior quality of seeds were sold to the complainant. M/s. Uttam Kheti Centre purchased...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT