District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Near F.C.I. Godowns, Muradpura, Tarn Taran (Punjab)
Consumer Complaint No : 83 of 2014
Date of Institution : 8.12.2014
Date of Decision: 16.06.2016
Pargat Singh son of Avtar Singh resident of village Hansawala, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran .
…Complainant
Versus
- Amandeep Singh son of Baljinder Singh, proprietor of Aman Kheti Store, Near Bharowal Spare Parts, Main Road Fatehabad, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran
- M.D. National Seed Corporation Seed Bhavan, Pussa Bhavan New Delhi,
- Director, Rajvan Seeds Corporation situated at O/s Hall Gate Old Sabji Mandi Amritsar through its Director.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Quorum: Sh. A.K.Mehta, President.
Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, Member
For complainant Sh.H.S.Sandhu, Advocate
For opposite party No. 1 Sh. K.M.Gupta, Advocate
For Opposite party No. 2 Sh. I.S.Handa, Advocate
For Opposite party No. 3 Sh. S.S. Malhi Advocate
A.K. Mehta, President
1 Sh. Pargat Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against Amandeep Singh son of Baljinder Singh, proprietor of Aman Kheti Store, Near Bharowal Spare Parts, Main Road Fatehabad, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran etc. (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice with further prayer to award the complainant compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2 The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an agriculturist and purchased 30 Kg seed of Pussa Basmati 1509 from Opposite Party No.1 on 28.4.2014 vide bill No. 18 dated 28.4.2014 @ Rs. 105/- for Rs. 3,150/- and at that time, Opposite Party No. 1 assured the complainant that the purchased seed would give 27 Quintal of yield per acre; that on the assurance of opposite party No.1, the complainant had sown the seed in 5 acre of agriculture land and spent Rs.10,000/- per acre on fertilizer, pesticide, diesel as well as on labour charges; that when the crop became two months old, the complainant was astonished to note that seed was of very bad quality and other paddy seeds were also mixed in it and due to this reason, the mixed crop was being grown in his fields which damaged the whole crop of basmati and complainant suffered loss of Rs. 50,000/- per acre i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- in all alongwith mental agony; that the complainant contacted Opposite Party alongwith respectable of the village and requested him to fulfill the loss of damaged crop but Opposite Party refused and thereafter, the complainant made complaint to Agricultural Officer, Tarn Taran on 17.10.2014 which was marked to Block Agricultural Officer, Khadoor Sahib and said Agricultural Officer inspected the spot and found that the crop is mixed crop with 40% Pussa Basmati 1121 seed; that the complainant suffered mental agony and financially due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties and it also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint was filed.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was sent to Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written reply contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law. It was averred that in fact the answering Opposite Party is doing the work of selling the seeds of all types at village Fatehbad and on 20.04.2014, the complainant came to the shop of answering Opposite Party and asked for seed of paddy Pussa Basmati 1509 containing the seal of MD National Seed Corporation i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 who is manufacturer of seed and as per the demand of the complainant, the answering Opposite Party purchased the seed of paddy/ maize from the dealer of Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Rajvans Seeds Corporation, Amritsar and purchased the seed vide bill No. 251 dated 26.4.2014; that Opposite Party No.1 never opened the seal of Opposite Party No. 2 affixed on the bags and sold 30 Kg i.e. 3 bags (10 Kg each) of Pussa Basmati 1509 to complainant on 28.4.2014 vide bill No. 18 dated 28.4.2014 and the complainant checked the seal of Opposite Party No. 2; that the complaint is bad due to non joinder of necessary parties as the dealer of Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Rajvans Seeds Corporation, Amritsar is not made a party in the complaint. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant purchased 30 Kg of seed Pussa Basmati 1509 on 28.4.2014, but all other allegations of the complaint regarding yield and other allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint against answering Opposite Party with costs.
4. Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against answering Opposite Party as the complainant has not purchased the seed in question from the authorized dealer of National Seed Corporation Limited i.e. Opposite Party No. 2; that the complaint is defamatory in nature and the question of integrity of Opposite Party No. 2 does not arise as the answering Opposite Party is a reputed institution which was established in March, 1963 under the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operation, Government of India, New Delhi and National Seeds Corporation undertake production, grading, and packing of seeds under the supervision of technical agricultural official. It was asserted that as per the recommendation for package of practices for Paddy of Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 8-10 Kg seed is required to be sown in one acre of paddy crop and after checking, grading, packing, sealing and testing in presence of technical officers, the seed is supplied in the market. It was asserted that there are about 8500 registered growers and 2800 distributors all over the country and has wide spread infrastructure seed facilities with 43 seed processing plants having seeds processing capacity of more than 11 lacs quintal and equal number of seed storage godowns and have five seed testing laboratories all over the countries and as such, the complaint has been filed for unnecessary harassment and is an abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It was asserted that Opposite Party No.1 is not the authorised dealer of Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Rajvans Seeds Corporation, Amritsar is one of the authorised dealer of Opposite Party No. 2 and seed is duly checked, graded, packed and tested by technical officers before it is supplied in the market and if there has been any tempering with the seeds, it could have been on the part of complainant or Opposite Party No.1. On merits, the complaint is also contested on the same line as were taken in preliminary objections and other allegations of the complaint were denied being false and incorrect and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.
5. Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written reply contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the complaint is false, frivolous and concocted; that the answering Opposite Party is doing the business of stocking and sale of branded seeds of reputed companies on wholesale basis at Amritsar and on 26.4.2014, Opposite Party No.1 visited the answering Opposite Party and purchased some items of seeds including paddy Pussa Basmati 1509 and maize vide bill No. 251 dated 26.4.2014 and answering Opposite Party delivered the said seeds to Opposite Party No.1 and bags were fully intact and sealed with the seal of Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. manufacturer of the paddy seeds and Opposite Party No.1 had also ensured regarding the seals on the bags at the time of taking delivery; that the answering Opposite Party has sold 2500 Kgs of seeds Pussa Basmati 1509 to different dealers in Amritsar District and no such complaint has ever been received and it shows malafide intention of the complainant; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as no notice was issued to answering Opposite Party or to Opposite Party No. 2; that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint against answering Opposite Party and the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of answering Opposite Party because answering Opposite Party sold the seed to Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 can file complaint only at Amritsar. The complaint is also contested on merits on the same line as were taken in the preliminary objections and other allegations of the complaint were also denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6 Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex. C-1, affidavit of Malkit Singh Ex.C2, Form ‘J’ Ex.C3, copy of bill dated 28.4.2014 Ex.C4, copy of report of Chief Agriculture Officer, Tarn Taran Ex.C5, Fard Ex.C6, girdawri Ex.C7, jamabandi for the year 2009-2010 Ex.C8, fard Ex.C9, jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 Ex.C10, girdawri Ex.C11, legal notice dated 30.10.2014 Ex.C12, postal receipt Ex.C13, photographs Ex.C14 to Ex.C19 and photo copy of bag as Mark ‘A’, letter dated 25.1.2016 Ex.C20, letter dated 12.1.2016 Ex.C21 and closed his evidence and thereafter ld. counsel for Opposite Party No.1 tendered affidavit of Amandeep Singh Ex.OP1/1 and closed evidence. Similarly Opposite Party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.B.K.Dhiman Area Manaer Ex.OP2/1 alongwith copy of authority letter Ex.OP2/2 and closed evidence. Opposite Party No. 3 also tendered affidavit of Rajpal Singh, Director of Rajvans Seeds Corporation, Amritsar Ex.OP3/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP3/2 to Ex.OP3/4 and closed evidence.
7 We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.
8. Ld.counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant purchased seed of Pussa Basmati 1509 from Opposite Party No.1 and the seed was manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No.3 is authorized dealer of Opposite Party No. 2. He contended that complainant purchased 30 Kg of seed @ Rs.105/- per kg vide bill Ex.C4. He also contended that when the crop was two months old, then the complainant noticed that the crop was mixture of varieties i.e. Pusa 1509 and Pusa 1121 and paddy Pussa Basmati 1509 was early maturing variety whereas other variety was late maturing variety and as such, the complainant suffered loss. He contended that the complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 from whom he purchased the seed, but with no affect and then the complainant filed an application to Chief Agricultural Officer, Tarn Taran who marked the same to Block Agricultural Officer, Khadoor Sahib, who visited the fields on 19.10.2014 and gave his report Ex.C5, which clearly shows that the crop was mixture of crops of Pussa Basmati 1509 and Pussa Basmati 1121 and it shows that the seed which was supplied by Opposite Party No.1 was a mixed seed. He contended that the complainant suffered loss of Rs.3 lacs i.e. Rs.50,000/- per acre and Rs.50,000/- spent on insecticides, pesticides, fertilisers, diesels, etc. He contended that the document Ex.C20 is issued by Market Committee, Khadoor Sahib which shows that the average price of Pussa Basmati 1509 was Rs.2450/- per quintal during 2014 and document Ex.C21 shows that average yield of Punjab Basmati 1509 was 15.7 quintal per acre in Punjab. He contended that the complainant has proved the revenue record on the file showing that he is owner of the land and also proved the legal notice Ex.C12 which he served on Opposite Party No.1. He contended that the complainant has also proved the photographs Ex.C14 to Ex.C19 showing the mixed crop and as such, the complainant has proved his case on the file and the complaint is required to be allowed.
9. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 contended that the present complaint has been filed on the allegations of defective seeds supplied by Opposite Party No.1, but analysis of the seeds as required under section 13(1)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act, has not been obtained by the complainant which is mandatory provision. He further contended that the complainant has filed an application for spot inspection to the Agricultural Department, but its notice was not given to Opposite Party No.1 and as such, the report obtained by the complainant is one-sided report as no opportunity of hearing was given to Opposite Party No.1. He further contended that even report Ex.C5 shows that the complainant has harvested the crop of Pussa Basmati 1509 and only crop Pussa Basmati 1121 was standing in the fields and it shows that the complainant has sown two different varieties of crops in different portion of field and that is why, the complainant had harvested the crop of Pussa Basmati 1509. He also contended that report Ex.C5 can not be read in evidence as khasra number and killa number is not mentioned nor any revenue official has identified the killa number and khasra number of the field which was inspected by the Agricultural Officer. He also contended that there is no evidence on the file that the field which was inspected by Agricultural Officer was owned by the complainant and as such, the report can not be connected with the case in hand and the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed to harass the answering Opposite Party and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 contended that the complainant admittedly purchased the seed from Opposite Party No.1 who is not the authorised dealer of Opposite Party No. 2 and as such, the Opposite Party No. 2 is not liable for any defect or deficiency in the seed. He further contended that as per Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 8-10 Kg of seed is required to be sown in one acre of land for obtaining proper yield, but the complainant has not sown 8-10 Kg of seed because the complainant purchased 30 Kg seed which he sown in 5 acres of land and it clearly shows that the complainant has sown other variety in the fields in order to cover up the gap and it shows that the complaint is false and is liable to be dismissed.
11. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.3 contended that Opposite Party No.3 sold only 100 Kg of seeds Pussa Basmati 1509 to Opposite Party No.1, whereas Opposite Party No.3 purchased 2500 Kg of seeds Pussa Basmati 1509 from Opposite Party No. 2 and sold the same in Amritsar and adjoining area including Opposite Party No. 1, but no other person to whom the seed was sold, has filed any complaint that the seed was of mixed variety or the yield was less and it clearly shows that the seed was mixed only by the complainant and the complainant has sown different varieties of seeds in his field. He further contended that Opposite Party No.1 sold 30 Kg of seed to the complainant whereas he purchased 100 Kg of seed from Opposite Party No.3 and it shows that 70 Kg seed was sold to other farmers, but no other farmers have filed any complaint regarding the defective seed or seed was of mixed variety and it clearly shows that the complainant has sown different varieties of seeds and report of Agricultural Officer also corroborate this fact and as such, the complaint is false and is liable to be dismissed.
12. After going through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents produced by the parties, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove his case on the file. The case of the complainant is that the seeds in question was mixed seeds and as such the purchased seeds were defective in nature. The contention of the complainant is that the seeds provided to him by Opposite Party No.1 were a mixture of two varieties of seeds. In order to prove his contention, the complainant has mainly relied upon the report of Agricultural Officer Ex.C5. The report Ex.C5 shows that Agricultural Officer went to the field of Pargat Singh on 19.10.2014 for physical verification and on inspection of 5 acres of land, found that 40% of the crop was of Pussa Basmati 1121. Report Ex. C.5 further shows that the complainant has harvested Pussa Basmati 1509 which is early maturing variety crop and found only Pussa Basmati 1121 crop in the field. Agricultural Officer has not mentioned the killa number and khasra number of the land inspected by him in his report nor any revenue official accompanied the Agricultural Officer in order to identify the field of the complainant and as such, this report can not be connected with the case in hand and it can not be said that the Agricultural Officer inspected the killa number and khasra numbers which were the ownership of the complainant, rather this report shows that Agricultural Officer had given the report simply on the identification of the complainant regarding the field where he had allegedly sown the seeds in question. In case titled Narender Kumar Vs. M/s.Arora Trading Company and others 2007(2) CLT 683, a complaint was filed alleging sub standardness of wheat seed by the complainant and the Agricultura Department Officer had not mentioned the Killa number and Khasra number of the land inspecting by him in his report and it was observed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula that the report does not pin point the identity of the land of the complainant and for that reason, the report can not be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant and the complainant was held to have failed to adduce any evidence to establish his case. Otherwise, this report also shows that the complainant has sown two types of seeds in different portion of his field and that is why the complainant / farmer had harvested his crop of Pussa Basmati 1509. If two types of seeds were mixed completely and sown in the field then it was not possible to harvest a particular variety of crop i.e. Pussa Basmati 1509, rather this report shows that the complainant had harvested his Pussa Basmati 1509 crop and only Pussa Basmati 1121 crop is standing in the field which clearly shows that the complainant / farmer had sown two types of basmati seeds at different parts of his field. Even otherwise the complainant has exaggerated the loss allegedly suffered by him. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- per acre whereas the complainant has sown paddy seed in question in 5 acres of land and as per the letter Ex.C20, the average rate of paddy Pussa Basmati 1509 was Rs.2450/- per quintal during the year 2014 and as per letter Ex.C21 the average yield of Pussa Basmati 1509 was 15.7 quintal per acre and as per it, if the complainant had suffered total loss, then the loss per acre would have been Rs.38,465/-, but as per the report of the Agriculture Officer Ex.C5 the complainant had harvested paddy crop Pussa Basmati 1509 when Agriculture Officer visited the field of the complainant i.e. on 19.10.2014 and about 40% of crop Pussa Basmati 1121 was still standing in the field which the complainant must have harvested afterward, but the complainant has not taken the value of these two types of paddy crop while assessing compensation and it shows that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands.
13. Otherwise also, section 13(1) (C) of the Act, provides that if the defect can be ascertained by analysis of the product then the complainant should prove his case by sending the product for analysis. In the case in hand, the complainant has alleged that the seed sold by Opposite Party No.1 was mixture of seeds and this fact can easily be proved by analysis of the seed, but the complainant has not sent the sample seed for analysis. The complainant has relied upon the case titled as National Seeds Corporation Limited Petitioner Vs.PV Krishna Reddy Respondent 2009(1) CPJ 99 to support his stand that analysis of the seed was not necessary to prove the defectiveness. The referred casa was decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 18.11.2008, but in a later judgement titled as Gyan Cahndra Sharda Petitioner Vs. Prabhari Sachiv Kshetriya Sadhan Sahkari Samiti & Ors. Respondents 2009(3) CPJ 19, the seeds were alleged to be defective resulting in less yield as assured by seller and complaint was filed which was allowed by the Forum, but in appeal the order of the Forum was set aside by Hon’ble State Commission who observed that the cause for less production was due to excessive rain and thereafter the revision was filed and it was observed by same Bench of Hon’ble National Commission that defectiveness of the seed not proved in absence of expert/ Laboratory report and the order of State Commission was upheld. In case in hand also the complainant has not proved the report of any laboratory to show that seed sold by Opposite Party No.1 was mixture of seeds.
14. Otherwise also, the complainant purchased 30 Kg of seeds from Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Aman Kheti Store and Aman Kheti Store purchased 100 Kg of seed Pussa Basmati 1509 from Rajvans Seeds Corporation, Amritsar vide bill Ex.OP3/3. It is the contention of Opposite Party No.1 that he sold remaining 70 Kg of seeds Pussa Basmati 1509 to different farmers in the same area but no other complaint was filed by any farmer. Likewise the contention of Opposite Party No.3 Rajvans Seeds Corporation, Amritsar is that it purchased 2500 Kg of Pussa Basmati 1509 from Opposite Party No. 2 and sold the same to different farmers, but no farmer had made any complaint regarding mixture of seeds as alleged by the complainant .
15. As per Package of Practices For the Crops of Punjab, published by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana for Kharif 2013, it is provided at page No. 3 that eight kg of heavy basmati seed is required per acre for proper yield. The complainant sown 30 Kg of paddy seed in 5 acres of land i.e. less seeds than prescribed by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and it appears that the complainant must have sown other quality of seeds in order to make good the deficiency.
16. The complainant filed an application to Agriculture Department for the spot inspection and then, the Block Agricultural Officer, Khadoor Sahib was deputed to inspect the field of the complainant, but no notice was given to the Opposite Parties, particularly to Opposite Party No.1. As such, the report given by Agricultural Officer can not be read against the Opposite Parties because this report has been obtained by the complainant at the back of Opposite Parties and without giving them any opportunity of hearing.. In case titled as Banta Ram Petitioner Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company & Anr Respondent 2013(2) CPJ 617, the complaint was filed under Consumer Protection Act on the allegation of defective seed and germination had not taken place as per assurance and notice of inspection of field was not given, but the complaint was dismissed by the Forum and the appeal was also dismissed by Hon’ble State Commission and the complainant filed the revision. Hon’ble National Commission observed that report of agricultural department can not be accepted as no notice of inspection of field was given for associating them with inspection nor laboratory report was obtained and it was observed that inferior quality of seed not proved and revision was dismissed. In case in hand also, no notice of inspection was given by the complainant or agricultural department or Block Agricultural Officer, Khadoor Sahib who visited the field, was given to the Opposite Parties in order to associate them with inspection and as such, the inspection report can not be read against the Opposite Parties. Otherwise, except report of Agriculture Officer, there is no other evidence on the file to show that the seed allegedly sold by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant, was a mixture of seeds and as such was defective seed. Therefore, it can be safely held that the complainant has failed to prove his case on the file that the seed sold by Opposite Party No.1 was a mixture of seeds due to which he suffered loss.
17. Looking from any corner and in view of the above said discussion, the complainant has failed to prove his case on the file and as such, the complaint is dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in Open Forum
Dated 16.06.2016
(Jaswinder Kaur) (A.K. Mehta)
Member President
