C.G. STATE SEED AND AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs. MOHANLAL SAHU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 25.11.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham/Kawardha (C.G.) (hence force called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 27/2013. By the impugned order, learned District Forum has allowed the complaint of the respondent No. 1 (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P. No. 2) and respondent No. 2 (O.P.) jointly or severally to pay within period of a month of the order a sum of Rs. 15,640 as cost of the substandard quality of seeds along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 24.6.2011 till date of payment and also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards appropriate compensation and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation to the respondent No. 1 (complainant). If the above amount is not paid by the OPs to the respondent No. 1 (complainant) within stipulated period, then the aforesaid would be payable along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order, but interest on interest would not be payable and the interest would not be more than the principal amount. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per pleadings are that on 3.5.2011, the respondent No. 1 (complainant) purchased 8 bags of soyabean seed at the cost of Rs. 7,360 and on 17.5.2011 purchased 9 bags of soyabean seeds from the respondent No. 2 (O.P. No. 1) at the cost of Rs. 8,280.. Thus, he paid total sum of Rs. 15,640 for purchasing the soyabean seeds. On 24.6.2011 the respondent No. 1 (complainant) had sown the said seeds in his field, but there was no germination in the said seeds, due to which the respondent No. 1 (complainant) suffered financial loss. The respondent No. 1 (complainant) demanded compensation in this regard from the OPs and also sent notices to them, but till date OPs have not paid any compensation to the respondent No. 1 (complainant) and thus committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum against the OPs and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the complaint.

(2.) THE respondent No. 2 (O.P. No. 1) was absent before the District Forum, therefore, their written statement, has not been filed. The matter was proceeded ex parte against the respondent No. 2 (O.P. No. 1).

(3.) AFTER having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, learned Districted Forum has allowed the complaint of the respondent No. 1 (complainant) and directed the OPs to pay compensation jointly or severally, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.