M/S. AVON BEEJ COMPANY Vs. ANOOP SINGH
LAWS(NCD)-2020-8-7
NCDRC
Decided on August 18,2020

M/S. Avon Beej Company Appellant
VERSUS
ANOOP SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RUBI CHANDRA DUTTA VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.K.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) M/s. Avon Beej Company, has filed the present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), against the Order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 810/2014, whereby the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal filed by M/s. Avon Been Company, the Opposite Party No. 3, and had affirmed the order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) which had allowed the Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 (the Complainant).
(2.) Brief facts of the case, according to the Complaint, are that Anoop Singh (hereinafter referred to as Complainant) took on lease 6 acres of land from Madan Lal and Om Prakash at Rs. 1,20,000/- for the year 2009.He approached M/s. Ankit Agricultural Store (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No.1), for purchasing paddy seeds for sowing in the land.On the assurance given by Opposite Party No. 1 that Pusa 1121 paddy seeds, manufactured by M/s. Krishak Bharti (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No.2) and marketed by M/s. Avon Beej Company (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No.3), are best in quality and without adulteration, the Complainant purchased 3 bags (30 kg.) Pusa 1121 seeds, having lot No. BS 401-30-40-09, for a total sum of Rs. 1800/- vide bill No. 8047 dated 18.05.2009 from Opposite Party No.1. It was alleged that despite sowing the seeds at the right time by using scientific agricultural methods, urea, sulphur DAP Zinc and water as per the right proportion, only 60% crop was yielded and the remaining crop was destroyed due to poor quality of seeds. It was alleged that had the seeds been of correct quality then he would have earned Rs. 3,00,000/- more from the crop.Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, Complainant filed Consumer Complaint against the Opposite Parties before the District Forum seeking a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. 3,00,000/- for loss of crop, Rs. 80,000/- towards fertilizers, seeds and medicines and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards economic, mental and physical loss and Rs. 1,20,000/- towards the contract of the land).
(3.) The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the Complaint before the District Forum. It was submitted that the seeds sold to the Complainant were not defective. It was also submitted that as per recommendations of the Agricultural Department 8 Kg. seeds were required to be sown in 1 acre whereas the Complainant had sown only 5 kg. seeds per acre.It was further submitted that no other complaint was ever received from the other customers.The loss suffered by the Complainant is due to his improper management and not on account of poor quality of seed and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. Despite service of notice by publication, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 did not appear before the District Forum and they were proceeded Ex-parte. The District Forum while considering the matter had directed the Deputy Director Agriculture, Bhiwani to inspect the paddy crop of the Complainant and to submit a report.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.