Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/290/2009

Phool Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/s Jamidar - Opp.Party(s)

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                                        Consumer Complaint No.290 of 2009 

             Date of Institution: 08.04.2009        

    Date of Decision: 11.02.2015

 

Phool Singh s/o Sh. Amar Singh, R/o Village Judola, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                                                                                                                                                                ……Complainant

 

                                                Versus

1. M/s Jamidar Seed Store, Gidbada (Punjab) through its Director/Chairman/Authorized Signatory
2. Faquir Chand Mangla, Main market, Farrukh Nagar, District Gurgaon through its proprietor.
3. Punjab State, Seed Certification Authority, Chandigarh (Punjab) through its authorized person.

….Opposite parties.

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986                                                           

BEFORE:     SH.RAGHVINDER SINGH BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.

                     MRS.JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

 

Present:        Sh.Narender Yadav, Adv for the complainant.

                     Sh.  Suraj Bhan, Adv for the OPs.

 

ORDER       R.S.BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.

 

                    The complainant alleged that he  purchased 3 bags of Certified Barley PL-426 from dealer OP-2 produced and marketed by OP-1 on 26.11.2008 for a sum of Rs.540/- per bag for a sum of Rs.1620/- vide Bill No.625 dated 26.11.2008 (C-1).  It is further alleged that after growth the complainant noticed that there is some adulteration in the seeds sown in his land (without mentioning the acres of land) and produced copy of Mutation showing himself  as owner to the extent of ¼ share out of 2/3 share in 47 K 4 M in Khata No.137 situated in village Judola, District Gurgaon (C-2) . Accordingly, they reported the matter to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Gurgaon (No document/Application produced). Consequently, the team of the Agriculture Department, Gurgaon inspected the standing crop of the complainants vide their Reports (C-3) which is undated nor land number given and on what date  it was surveyed). According to the said report, there was adulteration to  the extent of 30-35 % in the fields of the complainant. It is further alleged that  due to the above sub-standard seed of Barley, he has suffered a great loss  and thus, he has suffered a loss of Rs.20,000/-Thus, the OPs have totally failed to render sufficient services to the complainant. Accordingly, complainant prayed that the OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss of crop and Rs.25,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony.   The complaint is supported with an affidavit of complainant and the documents referred above.

2.       OP-1 to OP-3  in their separate  written reply while denying the claim of the complainant have taken objections that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. It is alleged that OP-1 had supplied Barley Seed bags to OP-2  It is further alleged that OPs are  not responsible for any other kind of seed if any other kind of seed sold by other party without the permission, notice and knowledge of the answering OP.  Three bags are to be sown in two acre agricultural land. The produce of two acre agricultural land is 30 quintal barely. The complainant might have failed to prepare his agricultural land before sowing the barley seed or there can be some defect in the land of the complainant or in the water available for irrigation. There has never been any adulteration in the seed sold by the answering OPs. However, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased three bags of barley seed.  It is denied that complainant has suffered any loss of Rs.20,000/- as alleged.   It is denied that there is adulteration in the seed to the extent of 30-35 % . The seed prepared, packed and sold by the answering OP has always been of good quality and no adulterated seed was ever prepared, packed and sold by the OP. The complainant is not entitled to any relief against the answering OPs. The complaint is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed.

3                  We have heard the parties and appraised the material on record carefully.  After going through the documents produced by the parties we are of the considered opinion that complainant has   purchased 3 bags of Certified Barley PL-426 from dealer OP-2 produced and marketed by OP-1 on 26.11.2008 for a sum of Rs.540/- per bag for a sum of Rs.1620/- vide Bill No.625 dated 26.11.2008 (C-1). The complainant has sown the impugned Barley seeds of variety PL-426 in his agricultural  land  but he failed to prove in which land number it has been sown for want of filing copy of Jamabandi/Khasra Girdawari. However,  seeds have been germinated but when they have Ballies it was found that they are not of the variety of PL-426 but  is if mixed variety of some other seeds though they have purchased  Barely Seed of PL-426 which has caused them a loss of bumper crop  and thus, suffered a loss of Rs.20,000/-. The complainants even got their standing crops in the fields inspected and surveyed through the competent authority who submitted undated Report without mentioning even date of inspection and of which Killa number etc  nor such Application produced to prove their complaint to the competent authority. However, the  Inspection Report  (C-3) reads as under:

         

1. Barley seed PL-426 was purchased by the complainant from OP-2 manufactured by OP-1
2. Barley seed PL-426 variety has six line Ballies whereas it has variety of two line Ballies also
3.  The mixed variety could not be ascertained which shows that there is mixture about 30-35% in the seeds sold to him.

 

Thus, the complainant failed to take any action under the provisions of Section 23-A of The Seeds Act, 1966  which reads as under :-

“23-A.Action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him –(1) If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complaint for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seed Testing Laboratory. He shall thereupon submit the report of his finding as soon as possible to the competent authority.

On the other hand, OPs failed to rebut the above report of the expert committee as the report has shown loss of 30-35 %  as against Barley seeds PL-426 purchased and sown by them, though their main objection was that they never complained to them which has a merit. Moreover, the complainant-farmer is required to get their certified seeds checked from the laboratory to prove their allegations of sub standard seeds. The Survey Committee  is the competent authority which  has to decide about quality or standard of Barley crop  and when found it to be mixed crop of Barley PL-426 to the extent of 30-35%. Moreover, for assessment of loss the complainant though alleged that they have  sown  it  in his fields  but  failed to produce any revenue record like Jamabandi/Khasra Girdawari of the standing crop of Barley to prove that in how much their land they have   cultivated the said Barley PL-426 seed to assess the yield and loss thereof. The onus to prove the loss lies on the complainant which they failed to discharge. In this regard reliance can be placed on National Seeds Corp. Ltd V M.Madhusudan Reddy, I(2004) CPJ 122(NC). 

 Thus, under such circumstances though Barley seed purchased by the complainant was of PL-426 variety but actually from the grown crop it was found to be mixed  with other  quality seed that is why he suffered   loss of crop to the  extent of alleged 30-35  %. Thus, the OPs have admittedly sold PL-426 variety of seeds with mixture as OP-1 whole seller has  allegedly packed and sold the seeds to OP-2  has simply alleged that they have purchased PL-426 variety of Barley seeds from the State Govt. Agency and they simply packed it and supplied to OP but they failed to prove this factum by producing any cogent evidence. Thus, they failed to rebut the claim of the complainant supported with  the expert agriculture scientist report that the seed PL-426 was of mixed variety and not pure certified seed of PL-426 Barley. Moreover, the complainant claimed  yield  30 quintal per acre but as per Punjab Agriculture University, Ludiana’s Package of Practices for Crops of Punjab Rabi 2007-08 ; PL-426 (1994), yield 14 quintals per acre and matures in124 days in irrigated conditions in the State only not 30 quintal as claimed though admittedly it gives 10 quintals and thus a meager loss which can be attributed to different conditions of sowing in different areas as against irrigated area of Punjab. Moreover, for sowing purposes 30 kg Barley seed is required per acre as per OP-3.

5                 Hence, under the above circumstances  we are of the considered opinion that they have sold mixed variety of seeds under the name  and style of PL-426 variety of Barley seed and have failed to prove loss of bumper crop to them and how much for want of any revenue record  thus, their such claim has no merit. But under the  circumstances discussed above, OP-1 & 2 are not only deficient in providing services to the complainant-farmer but also adopted unfair trade practice by selling low quality of variety Barley seed in the name of  variety PL-426, thus, they are jointly and severally liable for it. Reliance can be placed on Shri Rama Enterprises & Ano  V Venkat Reddy, III (2003) CPJ 14(NC) where regarding sending of seed for testing as per provisions u/s13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, it has been held

“that this is an expensive seed and farmer uses the last grain for use in the field. The farmer is not obliged to keep any part of it foreseeing such a contingency. He purchases the seed on good faith. If any quantity of the same seed was with the petitioner they could have got it tested.

When the sub-standard quality seed was sown but desired result was not shown it was held that quality of seeds responsible for state of affairs according to Agriculture Officer. Thus, there is deficiency in service and OPs are liable to refund the cost of seeds and expenses incurred by him.”

6        Consequently, as the complainant failed to prove that in how much land he has sown this seed but as per version of the OP-3, three bags weighing 30 kg  are required to be sown in three acres, thus, presuming it to be sown in three acres, the complainant is entitled to Rs.6,000/- as loss of crop from OP-1 and OP-2.  The OP-1 & 2  have also caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Thus, he is  entitled to compensation of Rs.3,000/ . The complainant is  also entitled to Interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The complainants are also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-. OP-1& 2 are jointly and severally liable to make the payment. However, complaint against OP-3 stands dismissed for want of any privity of contract between the two.

Compliance be made within 30 days by the OP-1 & 2

Copy of the Order be sent to the parties, free of costs.

 

Pronounced in open court.                           

Dated: 11.02.2015                                                                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                                                                Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

                 Member