Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President & Mr. A.D. Malik, Member
HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED—Appellant
versus
SUNIL KUMAR—Respondent
First Appeal No. 30 of 1998—Decided on 21.12.1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K. Pathania, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Non-compliance with statutory provisions, such as Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, can absolve a party from liability for compensation.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Unfair Trade Practice - Defective Seeds - Compensation
Fact of the Case:
Sunil Kumar, a farmer, alleged unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, and sale of spurious and sub-standard Bajra seeds by Haryana Seeds Development Corporation. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the corporation to pay compensation for the loss incurred by the farmer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seeds in question were not sent for proper analysis as required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, and dismissed the complaint.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Haryana Seeds Development Corporation was liable to compensate the farmer for the loss incurred due to defective seeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the non-compliance with Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, which required proper analysis of the seeds in question. As this provision was not followed, the corporation was not held liable for compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the District Forum was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President— 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 7½ 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. The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Ambala, 1993 (2) CON.LT 322, that as the seed in question was not sent for proper analysis under Section 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 Section 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.
Appeal allowed.
–
