PAHUJA TAKII SEED LTD. Vs. HARIHAR ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT , Pahuja Takii Seed Ltd., has appealed against the order dated 07.02.2008, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it by Harihar Estate Hitech Herbal Garden, hereinafter referred to as 'complainant ' and Dogra Beej Bhandar, has been allowed and it (the appellant) has been ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,92,000/ - with interest @ 9% per annum, on account of compensation for supplying defective seeds of cauliflower and an amount of Rs.2,000/ - as litigation expenses.

(2.) COMPLAINANT filed a complaint, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the present appellant and Dogra Beej Bhandar, respondent No.2 herein, alleging that on 05.08.2005 it had purchased 57 packets of hybrid cauliflower seeds for sowing in its garden, from Dogra Beej Bhandar, Hamirpur, and that as per label printed on the said packets, present appellant was packer and supplier of the seeds. According to the complainant, he sowed the seeds for germination into seedlings, in his green house but almost all the seeds got decayed and a few, which germinated, and were later on planted into fields, did not yield the desired result. It was alleged that the seeds failed to germinate and a few which germinated, did not yield the desired result when transferred to field because of their being defective. As a result, the complainant sustained loss to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/ -.

(3.) DOGRA Beej Bhandar did not put in appearance despite service and so it was proceeded against ex parte. The present appellant filed reply, in which it was denied that seeds packed and sold by it to Dogra Beej Bhandar, were defective. It was stated that the appellant was in the business of supply of seeds at a very large scale and during the year 2005 it supplied cauliflower seeds to several hundred persons and no one had made any complaint about the quality of the seeds, or that the seeds supplied by it, had not germinated. Some preliminary objections were also raised. It was stated that the proprietor of respondent -Harihar Estate Hitech Herbal Garden had been running the farm through a Manager and servants, on commercial scale and, as such, it was not a consumer. Also, it was stated that seeds or the seedlings or the plants had not been got tested at any laboratory, in support of the claim that the seeds were defective.