HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haryana Seeds Development Corporation has come up in appeal against the order dated 15th December, 1997 passed by District Forum, Gurgaon, whereby complaint of Sunil Kumar farmer alleging unfair trade practice, deficiency ill service and sale of spurious and sub-standard Bajra seeds by the appellant/has been allowed by issuing the following directions : "the complainant had sown 5 acres of land under the seed production programme. The 3-ploughing was enough for the preparation of land for Bajra crop. The charges of tractor ploughing are Rs.100/- per acre. So the expenses on that score come to 500 x 3 = 1500/-. He purchased the seed for Rs.1,525/- and the loss to season crop is assessed at Rs.2,000/- per acre not deducting the labour in cultivation upto final stage. So the total loss comes to Rs.1,500/- + Rs.1,525/- + 10,000/- = Rs.13,025/-. The complainant also incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,950/- on manure etc. So the total compensation amount comes Rs.16,000/-. The respondent shall pay the amount to the complainant within a month, failing which they shall be liable for interest @ 15% P. A. for the subsequent period till the payment,"

(2.) According to the complainant he had purchased Bajra seeds of M 58 843-A variety Lot No. October 95-07-12001 of breeder class weighing 7 Kgs. for Rs.1,525/- for sowing the same in 5 acres of his land. But the seeds did not germinate, which resulted into less produce. Since the loss in produce was attributable by the complainant to the supply of defective seeds, he approached the District Consumer Forum for grant of adequate compensation. In their reply, the Haryana Seeds Development Corporation pleaded that the complainant had not got the sample of the seeds in question chemically examined; hence in the absence of any expert evidence, it could not be presumed that the seeds were sub-standard. Despite that, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint by granting the aforesaid relief.

(3.) In the appeal before us, Mr. A. K. Pathania, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended by placing firm reliance on an earlier decision of this Commission in Jasdev Singh V/s. The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Ambala,1993 2 CONLT 322, that as the seed in question was not sent for proper analysis under Sec.13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, H. S. D. C. was not liable to make any compensation. We entirely agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant and as the provisions of Sec.13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act have not been complied with, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.