Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/110/2014

Ranbir Singh S/o Lal singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aadi Seeds And Pesticides - Opp.Party(s)

Karanjeet Singh

16 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT AJGADHRI.

 

                                                          Complaint No.110 of 2014.

                                                          Date of Institution:13.2.2014.

                                                          Date of Decision:16.10.2017.

 

Ranbir Singh s/o Sh.Lal Singh, age 40 years resident of village and Post office Mandhar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1.       Aadi Seeds and Pesticides Pabni Road, Bus Stand, Musimbal Musalmanan, tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor.

2.       Rallis India Ltd. Through Consumer Manager 156-157, Nariman Bhavan, 15^th floor 227 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021.

   …Respondents.

 

                                      Complaint under section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH.SATPAL………..PRESIDENT,

                   SH.S.C.SHARMA,        MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh.Karanjeet Singh, Adv. for complainant.

             Sh.M.C.Gupta, Adv. for OPs.

 

ORDER:     (SH.SATPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.               The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as Ops).

2.                Brief facts of the complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant had purchased four bags of paddy seeds of TATA 30 RILL for six acres of his land  against payment of Rs.650/- per bag totaling Rs.2600/- as its price.  The complainant had sown the seeds in his four acres of land and took all the precautions and gave proper watering etc. but there was not proper germination of the seeds as the seeds were of poor quality.   The complainant used DAP fertilizer weighing two bags, insecticides and did spray in the land and also used three bags of Urea and spent total Rs.48,000/- for four acres including labour charges.  The complainant informed the Op No.1 regarding above facts who came to the spot and checked the crop and it was found that there was mixing of other seeds in TATA 30RILL quality of seeds to the extent of 18 to 19% due to which the complainant could not get proper yield of crop.  The complainant personally  visited the OP No.1 several times and also talked to  OPs on phone but of no use, for which the complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar on 26.8.2013 and spot was inspected and mixing was found.  In normal course from one acre of land 40 quintals of paddy crop is expected as per the instructions on the seed bags sold by the Ops.  In this way, the complainant should have obtained 160 quintals of crop from the four acres of land in which seeds purchased were sown as such the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.56,000/- in respect of crops whereas he had also suffered loss on account of other expenses incurred in the shape of fertilizer labour expenses to the tune of Rs.48,000/-.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 21.12.2013 to the Ops calling upon them to make the payment of Rs.2,04,000/- in all to the complainant i.e. Rs.56,000/- on account of less yield of crop and Rs.48,000/- as loss on account  fertilizer, labour etc, hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the Ops to pay Rs.1,04,000/- to the complainant i.e. a sum of Rs.56,000/- on account of loss suffered due to less yield of crop and Rs.48,000/- as loss on account of fertilizer, labour etc. and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as Rs.11,000/- as cost of proceedings. 

3.                Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statements separately.  The Op No.1 while filing the written statement took some preliminary objections alleging therein that the report of inspecting team is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the said team, prior to inspection of the land has neither given any notice to the Op No.2 or answering OP and has also not mentioned any killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land which was inspected by the team.  Even Halqa Patwari was not summoned at the time of spot inspection.  Thus, the report does not pin point the identity of the land of complainant; the complainant has not produced the sample before this Hon’ble Forum for getting it analysed from the laboratory in terms of requirement of section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, which is mandatory in nature; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; there is no cause of action against the answering OP; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  The true facts are that the Op No.2 is reputed company and is supplying the seeds in All over India and answering OP is selling the said seeds; to get the proper plantation 6KG-7KG seed is required to be sown in one acre; the complainant has mentioned that he had purchased 4 bags of 3 KG each to sow inhis 4 acres of land, which clearly shows that the complainant has not sown the proper seeds and has not taken proper care of the land as per instructions of OP No.2; 4 bags could be used for 2 acres of land, whereas complainant has sown in 4 acres and might have mixed other seed himself when the seed manufactured by answering OP had fallen short; the complainant earlier sent a false notice and now has filed the complainant by taking false pleas by stating that the said seeds have not been properly germinated and he has suffered loss whereas he has himself remained failed to comply with the instructions given on the bag of the seeds.  On merits, the OP No.1 controverted the pleas taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and it has been averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Op and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                The Op No.2 while filing the written statement took some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the report of inspecting team is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the said team, prior to inspection of land, neither gave any notice to Op No.1 nor to the answering OP and has also not mentioned any killa number of the land.  Even the Halqa Patwari was not summoned at the spot.  Thus, the said report does not pin point the identity of land of complainant; the complainant has not produced the sample before this Hon’ble Forum for getting it analysed from the laboratory in terms of requirement of section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, which is mandatory in nature; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; there is no cause of action against the answering OP; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  The true facts are that the Op No.2 is reputed company and is supplying the seeds in All over India and answering OP is selling the said seeds; to get the proper plantation 6KG-7KG seed is required to be sown in one acre; the complainant has mentioned that he had purchased 4 bags of 3 KG each to sow in his 4 acres of land, which clearly shows that the complainant has not sown the proper seeds and has not taken proper care of the land as per instructions of OP No.2; 4 bags could be used for 2 acres of land, whereas complainant has sown in 4 acres and might have mixed other seed himself when the seed manufactured by answering OP had fallen short; the complainant earlier sent a false notice and now has filed the complainant by taking false pleas by stating that the said seeds have not been properly germinated and he has suffered loss whereas he himself remained failed to comply with the instructions given on the bag of the seeds.  On merits, the OP No.2 controverted the pleas taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and it has been averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Op and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit as annexure CW/A, documents such as copy of bill as annexure C.1, copy of application given to the DDA, Yamuna Nagar as annexure C.2, copy of notice given to the OP No.1 and complainant by the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri as annexure C.3, copy of report of inspection team as annexure C.4, copy of legal notice as annexure C.5, copy of reply of legal notice as annexure C.6 and closed his evidence.

6.                The counsel for Ops tendered into evidence affidavit as annexure RA, documents such as copy of bill dated 7.5.2013 as annexure R.1, copy of reply of legal notice as annexure R.2, postal receipt as annexure R.3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Ops.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.                On the other hand the learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the stand taken in their written statements and draw the attention of this Forum towards authority II (2013) CPJ 617 (NC) titled as Banta Ram vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company & Anr, wherein it has been held that, “Low germination may perhaps be due to reasons totally external to quality of seeds-Petitioner had not got the seed tested from any laboratory as required under provisions of Section 13(1)(c ) of Act 1986-He had also not moved application before concerned authorities for getting the seed of same batch number tested from any laboratory-Report of Agriculture Department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection-Inferiority quality of seeds not proved”.  Further draw the attention of this Forum towards authority 2007(2) CLT P.683, Haryana State Commission, Panchkula titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and others, wherein it has been held that, “Killa numbers and Khasra Numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Development Officer has not been mentioned in the report-Thus the report does not pin point the identity of the land of the complainant-For that reason this report cannot  be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant-The complainant failed to adduce any evidence on record to establish that he had used adequate quality of herbicide as per the instructions-At no stage the complainant had produced the sample before the District Forum for getting it analysed in terms of the requirements of Section 13 (1)  (c ) of the Act.  Further draw the attention of this Forum towards authority IV (2013) CPJ P.186 (NC) titled as Shamsher Singh vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar & anr held that,” when there is complaint by farmers regarding quality of seeds, inspection committee has to be constituted, comprising two officials of Agricultural Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kendra-Said instruction had not been followed by Agricultural Department while giving their report-Factum of complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality seeds has not been established by any scientific or other evidence-No illegality or irregularity in impugned order”.  Further draw the attention of this Forum towards order dated 12.6.2017 passed by this Forum in CC No.1164 of 2012 titled as Kushal Pal vs. Luxmi Beej Kender and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9.                After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear that the complainant had purchased the paddy seeds of TATA RIL-30 variety from the Op No.1manufactured by OP No.2vide bill no.72, dated 11.5.2013(annexure C.1) for Rs.9880/- including seeds of three other varieties.This fact is also clear that when the paddyseeds hadnot grown upthecomplainant contacted the Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar and moved an application for inspecting the paddy crop of the complainant upon which a team comprising of Sub Divisional Officer, Agriculture, Jagadhri and Agriculture Development Officer, Bherthal was constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture and the said team after inspecting the field of the complainant submitted the report on 30.8.2013(annexure C.4), the operative of part of which reads as under: “During inspection they found mixing of 18-19% of other seeds which caused financial loss to the farmer”.  

The Ops have taken the following pleas in their favour;

i)       That the said report of the team does not contain Killa/Khasra Numbers

ii)      That the said team did not associate the Halqa Patwari as also the representative of the Ops during the inspection of the fields.

iii)     That the complainant did not get the sample of the seed tested from any authorized laboratory in support of his version.

                   Firstly, regarding the plea mentioned at sr.no.1 it is mentioned here that the non mentioning of Killa/Khasra numbers does not invalidate or falsify the report of the said team as the identity of the land is well established in view of the fact that the complainant had purchased seeds of four different varieties from the shop of OP No.1 and sown the same in his fields and he had got inspected the field in the presence of representative of OP No.1 but he had raised the objections with regard to quality of the seeds only in respect of TATA RIL-30 variety of paddy seeds.  The inspecting team had inspected the fields of the complainant only where nursery of RIL-30 variety was sown and not any other variety.  The bonafide of the complainant is established from the fact that he had raised the objection only in respect of TATA RIL-30 variety of paddy seeds, whereas he had purchased seeds of three other variety also vide bill No.72, dated 11.5.2013 (annexure C.1), Moreover, no allegations of any biasness has been pointed out or levelled against the members of the team and further inspection has been done in the presence of representative of OP No.1. Even otherwise, there is no reason/justification for this Forum to ignore or discard the report of the said team.

                   Secondly, the plea of the Ops regarding non association of the Halqa Patwari/representative of the OP during inspection is also not tenable in view of the fact that there is no dispute about the identity of the land where the nursery of Paddy seeds RIL-30 was sown.

                   Thirdly, the plea of the Ops that the complainant should have got the seeds analysed/tested from any lab is also not tenable because the farmers like the complainant purchase the seeds in a small quantity and does not retain the sample of the purchased seeds with them for further testing by the lab.  This fact is also well known that the farmers are not so literate and also reside in rural areas away from the towns and thus are not expected to retain the sample of seeds out of the purchased seeds for the purposes of testing from any lab so as to enable them to file the complaint in the Consumer Forum at the later stage.  At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that even the Ops have not placed on record any certified report of the sample of seeds of any authorized lab, so mere pleading is not sufficient to prove their version and the version of the complainant is un-rebutted, hence, the defect in the seeds is proved and the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is found, hence, the complainant entitled for relief.

10.              The preposition of law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in the case reported in 2014(2) CPJ 703:2014(3) CPR 78:2014(3)CLT 186 (NC) titled as M/s Dharam Pal & Sons & another vs. Som Prakash, in which it has been held that,” Section 23A-officers of Agriculture department inspected the fields and submitted their report-Compliant accepted on the basis of report of Agriculture department-Plea of OP that seeds not got tested from the laboratory nor seeds sent to Seed Analyst for analysis-Plea not tenable-Held-As per the report, it is clear that the complainant had suffered loss in his paddy crop, to the extent of 50% , on account of substandard quality of seed sold to him by the Ops-There is nothing to label it as any ill-will by the members of the joint inspection team and the seller of the seed-Revision petition dismissed”.  Further the Hon’ble National Commission laid down a law reported in 2015(2) CLT P.94 (NC) titled as Doctor Seeds Private Limited vs. Ramesh Chand Thakur, held that Defective seed-Seeds Rules imposes the duty on the seller of seeds to keep sample of seeds, for a period of 3 years-Complainant, who has got only a small quantity of seeds is not supposed to keep a sample of the same-Despite of notice by complainant seller failed to preserve the sample of seeds-Held-Even in the absence of the expert, the Commission was to see, whether there are materials on the record which can prove the case of complainant-Revision Petition dismissed”. The Hon’ble Punjab State Commission also laid down law in case reported in 2012 (4) CLT 644(Pb.) titled as Rai Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Vs. Diwan Chand & ors.  it has been held that, “Sections 6,7,8 and 9-Seeds-cotton seeds-Defective seeds-The appellant manufacturer of seeds produced no evidence that before selling the seeds in dispute the same were certified from the certification agency or from the Central Seed Certification Board as required u/s 6,7,8 and 9 of the Act 1966-Even no certificate is produced by the appellant to prove that the Seed in dispute before selling in the market were got analysed from the appropriate laboratory-By not producing the certification as well as the analysis report of the seeds in dispute of any recognized laboratory, it cannot be presumed that the seeds in dispute were not of inferior quality-Appellant as well as respondent No.2 nowhere pleaded or produced any evidence that the seeds in dispute were got tested from the certification agency or from the Central Seed Certification Board as required as per Section 6,7,8 and 9 of the Act, 1966-It is proved beyond any doubt that the seeds in dispute sold to respondent no.1 were of sub-standard quality and respondent no.1’s suffered loss due to defective quality of the seeds in dispute-Order of the District Forum allowing the appeal upheld”.  Further law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, in case titled as Rajinder Singh vs. Hariali Kissan Bajar reported in 2015(2) CLT 556 wherein it was held as under: “Defective seeds-From analysis of evidence on record and pleadings of the parties-Held, that the farmer cannot be expected to retain any part of highly valued seed to get it tested in case of unforeseen contingency by authorized dealer or manufacturer-OP being the seed producer would always have some quantity of seeds left with them and which they could have got tested from the laboratory-Therefore, it is their failure to perform, which has to be held against them”. Thus, the authorities discussed above in support of case of complainant are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case whereas the authorities (supra) tendered by the Ops are not disputed but not identical to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

11.              So far as the quantum of loss suffered by the complainant is concerned, we are of the view that average yield/production of paddy in question is about 25 quintals per acre and the report of the inspecting team has reported the loss to crop to the extent of 18-19%.  The area where the seeds were sown by the complainant was four acres and the total yield was expected to be 100 quintals and in the year 2013 the rate of one quintal paddy was approximately Rs.1300/- and total income from the four acres is as (100x1300=1,30,000/-) and the loss caused to the complainant is 18-19% i.e. 1,30,000x19/100=Rs.24,700/- meaning thereby the complainant had suffered loss of Rs.24,700/- and he is entitled to be compensated for the above said amount.

12.              Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay Rs.24,700/- as loss suffered by him due to defective seeds along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the compliant i.e. 13.2.2014 till its realization and further to pay Rs.5500/- as cost of proceedings.  Order be complied within one month from the date of preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant will be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced in open Court:16.10.2017.

                                                                             (SATPAL)

                                                                             PRESIDENT.

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                          MEMBER.