(1.) This revision petition filed under sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 31/8/2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'State Commission') dismissing First Appeal No. 771 of 2011 filed against order dtd. 4/4/2011 in complaint no. 325 of 2009 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (in short, 'District Forum').
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent purchased three bags of seed of paddy metro seeds P-1460 from the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.7200.00 i.e. at the rate of Rs.200.00 per kg vide bill no. 2245 dtd. 31/7/2008. The seeds were manufactured by respondent no. 2. The respondent planted the seeds on 11 acres of his land as per directions mentioned on the bag of the seeds. The seeds supplied to the respondent by the petitioner were found to be of inferior/lowest quality. The respondent contacted the Agriculture Department on 12/10/2008 with an application. The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee to assess the loss caused due to the supply of inferior seeds to the respondent. The Committee visited the lands of the respondent and observed that there was no uniformity in maturity and ripening in the paddy fields. Approximately 25% plants were in flowering stage, 35% in dough stage and the balance 40% had physiological matured and ready to harvest. The Committee also concluded that this uneven maturity caused loss of quality and quantity of paddy and estimated a loss of around 60% per acre in paddy yield. Based upon the rate for paddy, the respondent's financial loss was quantified at Rs.8,000.00 per acre due to the supply of inferior seeds by the petitioner which amounts to Rs.88,000.00 in 11 acres of land.
(3.) The consumer complaint filed was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that the sample of seeds were not analyzed as per procedure prescribed under sec. 13(1)(c) of the Act and therefore deficiency in service and unfair trade practice was not established on the basis of MRF Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Lal 1993 (3) RCR (Civil) 207, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Parchuri Narayana 2009 (1) CPC 471 and Hindustan Pesticides Ltd. Vs. Kopolu Sambasiva Rao and Ors. 2006 (1) CPC 36. The respondent preferred an appeal before the State Commission which allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum on the basis of the Committee's report holding that it was not possible for the farmer to retain seeds on the presumption that they may be required to be tested with the direction to pay Rs.88,000.00 for loss of crop, Rs.11,000.00 as compensation and Rs.5,500.00 as costs within 60 days failing which payment with 6% interest. The petitioner is before us impugning this order praying that this it be set aside.