PREM BROTHER Vs. BHARPUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petition no. 1674 of 2014 has been filed against the judgment dated 30.07.2013 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('the State Commission') in Appeal no. 1793 of 2009.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the respondent purchased 22 bags of 40 kg each of 502 variety of wheat seeds from the petitioner/ opposite party for sowing in his fields. The respondent purchased the above said seeds for getting good produce as well as for using the produced seeds as seeds for next year also. The petitioner sold the above said seeds stating they are pure seeds of the above said variety and there was no mixing of any seeds of any other variety. The petitioner had further assured the respondent that the seeds were pure line of the above said variety and the produce would be off a very high quality. On the assurance of the petitioner the respondents purchased the above said seeds and had sown the seeds in 22 acres of agricultural land. The respondent had taken every care to have good produce and used good quality of fertilizer and pesticide. The respondent invested Rs.13,200/- on the seeds and around Rs.21 lakh on fertilizer pesticide, diesel and on other agricultural expenses. However, the quality of the seeds of the petitioner was not pure variety of 502, but rather there was mixing of seeds of some other variety as a result of which some of the plants had grown taller and they would mature earlier than the other ones which attained a smaller height. If the variety would have been pure one, then all the plants would have had the same height and would also have matured at the same time. Now there would be a great loss in the produce as well as there would be great difficulty to harvest both of them. At the time of harvesting the taller plants would ripen earlier than the smaller ones. It would prolong the harvesting time to get the smaller plants to ripe then the plants which have ripened earlier would wither and definitely would impact in terms of quantity of produce. All this is due to the impurities in the variety of the seeds and there was no negligence on the part of the respondent. Even after investing so much there will be a loss of Rs.15,000/- per acre to the respondent for which there was no negligence on his part. There was a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner as the seeds which they have sold to the respondent by falsely misrepresenting that the seeds are pure one of 502 variety. The respondent purchased the above said seeds so that he can further sell the produce as seeds to other farmers. Due to the negligence as well as deficiency in service of the petitioner there had been a great financial loss to the respondent. The respondent sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 29.01.2009, but the petitioner did not respond positively. Regarding the impurity in the seeds, the respondent gave an application to the concerned officials of the agricultural department, who after their visit to the agricultural fields gave a detailed report regarding the presence of around 5% mixing of seeds of other variety. In the report it was duly reported that 50% are un-ripened. In the report even the agricultural department has taken a note regarding the cancellation of the license regarding the selling of the seeds of the petitioner. Even after legal notice, the respondent contacted the petitioner but they adamantly refused to compensate the respondent in any way. The respondent had suffered a loss of about Rs.15,000/- per acre which amounts to Rs.3,30,000/-. The respondent was entitled for Rs.3,30,000/- (loss in terms of produce as well as from inability to sell the produce as seeds) + Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony, Rs.5,000/- as deficiency in service and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses + Rs.13,200/- as costs of the seeds, total Rs.3,60,500/-. Hence, this complaint.

(3.) The District Forum, Patiala gave notice of the complaint to the petitioner to put in appearance in the Forum on 29.04.2008 but they failed to put in appearance and were proceeded against ex parte on 04.05.2009.