Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/466/2019

Amardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aggarwal Seed Store - Opp.Party(s)

Prem Sagar

02 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFOR THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    466 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         18.10.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 02.08.2022

 

Amardeep Singh s/o Shri Balwant Singh, aged about 35 years, r/o village Ban, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. M/s Aggarwal Seed Store, near Punjab National Bank, Radaur Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, through its partners/proprietor.
2. Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 3-6-327, Dossi Chamber, Block 204, Haider Guda, Hyderabad-500029, Telgana through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Shri Prem Sagar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Mukul Sharma, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Saurabh Kumar, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was having agriculturist land measuring 3 acres in village Ban, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra and he purchased 2 bags (2 x 5 kgs) of paddy seed PB-1509 marka from OP No.1, vide Bill No.8880 dated 14.05.2019 for a total sum of Rs.1100/-. He sown the said seed in his three acres of land after incurring more than Rs.8000/- for sowing the same. When the plants grown up, he came to know that the seed was not of PB-1509, rather it was mixed seed, substandard and defective seed. In this regard, he moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture Kurukshetra on 16.09.2019 for inspection of his fields, upon which, they visited his fields and gave their report dated 17.9.2019, as per that, paddy crops standing in 3 acres of land are not of PB-1509. Thereafter, he visited many times in the office of OPs to compensate the said loss to the tune of Rs.60,000/-, but they failed to pay the same. The above act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss as well, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their written statement, wherein, admitted sold of seed in question to the complainant. The report dated 17.9.2019 are totally vague, as there is no specific mention in respect of the land Gut Number or Survey Number and the boundaries thereof as well as in whose presence, the said crop was inspected by said authorities. The complainant never approached the OPs in respect of alleged defect in the seed. No intimation was given to the OPs regarding so called visit of said Agriculture Department. Complainant has not followed the procedure contemplated u/s 13 (1)(c) of CP Act. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against them.

4.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with document Ex.R-1 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the case file carefully and written arguments submitted by counsel for the OPs.

7.                At the outset, learned counsel for OPs has raised two objections, firstly, that the complainant had not complied with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, which is mandatory in nature, as such, the present complaint is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed on this very score. It is pertinent to mention here that in the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds, purchased by him, for the purpose of sowing, and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed, because the seeds, purchased by him, were of defective quality, and nothing remains with him, which could be tested in a laboratory. So, the contention of OPs regarding compliance of the provision of section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has no force, hence rejected. In this context, we can rely upon the case law titled M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr., 2012(1) ACJ 265 (SC), wherein, it is held that "The complainant purchased 5 kgs of bitter gourd seeds under Ex.A-1 and sowed the seeds in an extent of 3 acres in his land. He sowed the entire seeds purchased by him. At the time of sowing, he might not have known that he had to keep back some seeds out of the seeds purchased by him as sample in the event of his approaching Forum if the seed crop was ultimately rejected by NSC. As all the seeds were sowed, he could not have taken out any seeds from the soil and produce them before the District Forum for following the procedure contemplated under Section 13(1) of C.P. Act. In those circumstances, the sample of seeds could not be sent to the appropriate Laboratory for analysis as contemplated under Section 13 of C.P. Act by the District Forum."

8.                Now coming to the second objection raised by learned counsel for the OPs that report conducted by Agriculture Department Ex.C-4 is also faulty in nature, as this inspection was conducted by a committee of three persons, but for conducting inspection, there must be Committee of four persons i.e. two officers from Agriculture Department, one from concerned seed agency and one scientists from KGK/KVK/IARI or HAU. But this objection of OPs has no force and in this regard, our view is fully supported by the case law titled M/s Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat Ram and others, 2014 (1) CLT 624, wherein it is held by the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (g)- Defective seeds (Bajra)- Effect of non-joining seed dealer in field inspection- Bajra seed found defective having been mixed with some other variety and not pure- Plea of OP that the seed supplied was tested and passed by the Seed Certification Agency and field not inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana- Dealer of seed not joined by the experts during the inspection of fields of complainant- Contention repelled- Held- It was the duty of the officials of Agriculture Department to get the field inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana- The team not being constituted as per the letter of the Director of Agriculture and not associating the dealer of the seed, was not the fault of the farmer because he was not supposed to be aware that the representative of the company was to be associated in the team- It was for the officials of Agriculture Department to call the representatives of the company- It was not the fault of the farmer at all, for which he would not be allowed to suffer-Appeal dismissed.

9.                Now coming on the merits of the case.      

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was having agriculturist land measuring 3 acres in village Ban, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra and purchased 2 bags (2 x 5 kgs) of paddy seed PB-1509 marka from OP No.1. The complainant sown the said seed in his three acres of land after incurring more than Rs.8000/- for sowing the same. When the plants grown up, he came to know that the seed was not of PB-1509, rather it was mixed seed, substandard and defective seed. In this regard, moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture Kurukshetra on 16.09.2019 for inspection of his fields, upon which, they visited his fields and gave their report dated 17.9.2019, as per that, paddy crops standing in 3 acres of land are not of PB-1509. Thereafter, he visited many times in the office of OPs to compensate the said loss to the tune of Rs.60,000/-, but they failed to pay the same. The above act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise.

11.              The learned counsel for the OPs submitted written arguments stating therein that the report dated 17.9.2019 are totally vague, as there is no specific mention in respect of the land Gut Number or Survey Number and the boundaries thereof as well as in whose presence, the said crop was inspected by said authorities. The complainant never approached the OPs in respect of alleged defect in the seed. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against them.

12.              There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant purchased PB-1509 seed from OP No.1 vide Bill Ex.C-7.

13.              The grievance of the complainant is that he sown the said seed of paddy crop in 3 acres of land, but the plants did not grow properly, due to mixed/ substandard variety of seed and in this regard, on 16.09.2019, he moved an application to the Deputy Department, Agriculture, Kurukshetra Ex.C-3, upon which, on 17.09.2019, a team of Agriculture Department examined the standing paddy crop and issued a report in this regard Ex.C-4. He approached the OPs various times and requested to pay the compensation, but all in vain. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has contended that the seeds sold to the complainant was of the best quality. There was no fault or imperfection in the said seed. There is no complaint from any farmer except the present complainant.

14.              In the Inspection Report of Agriculture Department Ex.C-4, it is reported by the said Inspecting team that the standing crop in three acres of land of complainant was not visible PB-1509. These contents of this report Ex.C-4 clearly indicates that the seed purchased by the complainant, from OP No.1, was of mixed/substandard quality. On the other hand, the OPs contended that the seed sold to the complainant was not of mixed/substandard, rather the same was of good/best quality, but it is pertinent to mention here that in order to prove his above contentions, the OPs failed to produce any documentary evidence on the case file, and without which, the contentions of the OPs are not believable. So, keeping in view the above inspection report Ex.C-4 as well as pleadings of the parties, we come to the conclusion that the OPs sold mixed/substandard quality of seed to the complainant and due to that, the complainant might have certainly caused the loss, due to less yield in three acres of land, as such, the OPs are deficient in providing the services to the complainant and are liable to pay the losses suffered by the complainant for fewer yield due to mixed quality of seed sold by them.

15.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? The complainant produced on the case file copy of J-Form bearing No.25 dated 20.09.2019, from which, it can be gathered that the average yield of paddy crop of PB-1509 seed was 21.50 Qtl. and rate was Rs.2500/- per Qtl. From the Inspection report Ex.C-4, it is clear that the complainant sown the said seed in 3 acres of his land, but this report is silent about loss to the complainant due to less yield. In these circumstances, in our view, the ends of justice will be met if we assume 20% loss of yield per acre to the complainant, as such, the loss of yield for 3 acres of land of complainant, is calculated as under:-

Average yield of paddy crop per acre         -        Rs.21.50 Qtl.

Rate of paddy crop                                    -        Rs.2500/- per Qtl.

Loss for 20% less yield per acre                 -        21.50 x 2500 x 20% = 10750/-

As such, for 3 acres loss comes to     =                Rs.10750/- x 3 = Rs.32,250/-

 

16.              So, in view of above calculation, the complainant is entitled to receive the total Rs.32250/-, from both the OPs, for the loss suffered by him in 3 acres of land for less 20% yield due to inferior/mixed quality of seed sold by the OPs. For their act of deficiency in service, complainant is also entitled to receive the compensation amount along with litigations expenses from the OPs.

17.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against the OPs, and direct them jointly and severally to make the payment of Rs.32,250/-, to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services on their part along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the records, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:02.08.2022.

 

    

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)               

          (Neelam)                                                               President,

          Member.                                                               DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.