Haryana

StateCommission

A/84/2016

NUZUVEEDU SEEDS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJMER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.ADHLAKHA

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.84 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 27.01.2016

Date of Decision: 02.03.2017

 

 

1.      Nuziveedu Seed Private Limited, office situated at Doolapally road, Kompally, Quthbullapur (amndal) Secundrabad, RR District, Andhra Pradesh-500014 through its Managing Director/ Authorized persons.

2.      National Seed House, office situated at shop No.75, New Sabji Mandi Panipat-132103 (Haryana) through its Prop./Authorized person.

                                                                             .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Ajmer Singh S/o Pirthi Ram, Caste Jat, R/o Village Dahar,  Tehsil & Distt. Panipat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.D.S.Adlakha, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr.Sikander Bakshi proxy counsel for Mr.Rajesh Kaul, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

It was alleged by complainant that he purchased nine packets of tomato seed  of Mithili-1348” of 10 grams each vide bill No.2224 dated 14.10.2013 worth Rs.3240/- from Opposite Party (O.P.) No.2.   He sowed those seeds, but, was shocked and stunned after seeking condition of crop because seeds were mixed. He contacted O.P.No.2 and they sent doctor namely Mr. Parmal.  He advised him about various sprays and chemical medicines, but, to no use. He suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-.  O.Ps. be directed to pay the same besides interest etc.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that  no notice was given to them at the time of inspection. Report of local commission (Horticulture Department) dated 05.08.2014 was prepared in connivance with complainant, so that be rejected. The inspection of the Tomato crops  was not conducted by competent person. Report of local commissioner was based on information collected from farmers. Report shows that tomato plants were very less and there was  heavy weed in the fields. Report did not disclose that complainant suffered any kind of loss due to defect in seeds. Objections about maintainability of complaint, false and frivolous pleas, accruing cause of action, locus standi etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 04.01.2016 and directed  O.Ps. to pay Rs.1,00,000/- in lumpsum to the complainant as compensation for loss of his crop besides Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal on the ground that learned District Forum wrongly granted compensation because provisions contained in Section 13 (1) ( c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “District Forum”) were not complied with.  When sub-standard seeds were not sold, he was not entitled for any compensation.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that as per report Ex.C-10 it is clear that  there were very less tomato plants  and they were also not grown properly and were full of weed. The crop was destroyed due to mixed seeds sold by appellants-O.Ps., so learned District Forum rightly allowed claim and appeal be dismissed.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  Learned counsel for the appellants-O.Ps. has produced copies of the orders showing that seeds were properly checked before sending to market for sale. As per this certificate there was no defect in the seeds.  To rebut this fact, complainant  should have got the seeds examined from appropriate laboratory.  In the absence of any evidence to this effect it cannot be opined that seeds were defective.  No doubt in Ex.C-10 it is mentioned that tomato crop was not up-to mark and was full of weeds, but, it is no-where mentioned that crop was damaged due to seeds sold by appellants.  Further Ex.C-10 is an inspection report and not test report of seeds.  It is no-where mentioned that the seeds was tested and were found defective. When there is no specific report to this effect it cannot be presumed that the seeds were not proper.  To prove this fact the provisions contained in section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should have been complied with. The seeds should have been sent to  laboratory for test.

8.      Version of complainant cannot be accepted keeping in view the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Maharashtra

Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Parchuri Narayana, 2009 (1) CPC page 471 wherein it is opined that complainant is supposed to get the quality of the goods determined from competent Authority, which he has failed to do.  It is also opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Kopolu Sambasiva Rao & Ors. IV (2005) CPJ 47 (NC) that crops can fail due to various reasons viz., poor quality of land, fertilizers, inadequate rainfall or irrigation and also due to poor quality or inadequate or overdose of pesticides/insecticides. Therefore, whether the tomato crop failed due to poor quality of seeds is required to be proved by reliable evidence.

9.                It is also opined by Hon’ble National Commission in first appeal No.371 of 2005 titled as Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. Velago Narasimha Rao decided on 8th March 2010 that in the absence of proper testing, it cannot be presumed that loss of crop was due to poor seeds.  In the present case, seeds in question was never got tested at any stage and for that reason the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.

10.    More so, no notice was given to the manufacturer before inspection.  As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Indian Farmers fertilizers co-operative Vs. Bhup Singh in revision petition No.2144 of 2014 decided on  09.04.2015 such report cannot be relied upon if notice was not issued to O.Ps. before visit.  The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-

“6.     Perusal of inspection report clearly reveals that  inspection was made by a team of B.A.O., S.M.S. (PP) and SDAO whereas, as per circular of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 03.01.2002 fields were to be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK. Admittedly, inspection was not carried out after due notice to representative of OP and Scientist was not called and admittedly, not in their presence.  In such circumstances, inspection report made by some officers of Agriculture Department cannot be acted upon and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were not of standard quality, particularly, when these seeds were certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency.  Learned District Forum and learned State Commission wrongly observed that non formation of team as per circular of director of Agriculture was not fault of the complainant.  At the time of inspection, complainant should have asked the inspecting team to intimate OP as well Scientist for carrying out inspection and as inspection has not been done by the duly constituted committee, no reliance can be placed on this inspection report and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the petitioner.

7.      In R.P.No.1451 of 2011-Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah, P.Sreenivasulu and Sai Agro Agencies it was observed that inspection without notice to OP is against the principles of natural justice and no reliance was placed on inspection report as it was not supplied to the OP to present his view on the report.  He also placed reliance on the judgment of this commission in R.P.No.4280 to 4282 of 2007-Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. Sreenivasa Reddy & Ors. In which it was observed as under:-

“Hon’ble Supreme court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs.Sadhu & Anr. II (2005) SLT 569=11 (2005) CPJ 13 SC=(2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs.Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2428/2008, has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The apex court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant.

Report of Agriculture Department in case in hand does   not mention about inferior quality of seeds and merely because some of the plants were of low height without any fruit, it cannot be presumed that seeds were mixed with low quality of seeds.

8.      In the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that report obtained by the complainant without notice to OP cannot be relied upon and learned District Forum fell in error while holding deficiency in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be allowed.”

11.    After observation of Hon’ble National Commission nothing is left to be discussed about this report. When this report cannot be relied upon it cannot be presumed that complainant has suffered any loss due to poor quality of seeds.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects.  So impugned order dated 04.01.2016 is set aside. The appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and due verification.

 

March 2nd, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.