LAWS(NCD)-2019-10-75

NIRANKARI AGRI SEEDS Vs. GURDEV SINGH

Decided On October 16, 2019
Nirankari Agri Seeds Appellant
V/S
GURDEV SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Nirankari Agri Seeds against the order dated 15.2.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') in First Appeal no.228 of 2016.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1, who was the complainant before the District Forum purchased 40 kilogram of paddy seeds of variety 1121 for sowing in his 10 acres of land. As the crop progressed, it was observed by the complainant that all plants are not of equal height and all plants are not uniform. The complainant made a complaint to the Chief agriculture officer who got inspected the field of the complainant by the agriculture Development Officer who submitted a technical report dated 1.10.2014. Later on final report was also submitted on 28.11.2014. It was found in the report that the plants were of different sizes which indicated the mixing of seeds in the sold variety. Agriculture Officer also assessed that the yield per quintal was only 14 quintal and about one third plants were of different variety, thereby resulting in lesser yield by 30% . The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot, (in short 'the District Forum') against the manufacturer and the dealer for sub-standard seeds. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, however, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 29.01.2016 and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant along with 9% per annum interest from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 9.06.2015 till realization. Opposite parties were further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/-as litigation charges. The opposite party No.1 preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA No.228 of 2016. The State Commission dismissed the appeal by its order dated 15.02.2017.

(3.) Hence the present revision petition.