Haryana

Karnal

CC/88/2020

Gurtaj Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asha Nand Shiv Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Kamboj

08 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 88 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.11.02.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:08.02.2024

 

Gurtej Pal Singh son of Shri Kulwant Singh, resident of MC Road Taraori, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Asha Nand Shiv Kumar Shop No.10-11, Subzi Mandi, Karnal, through its proprietor.

2.     Syngenta India Limited, Seeds Division, 1170/27, Revenue Colony Shivaji Nagar, at present Amar Paradigm, S.No.119/11/3, Baner Road, Pune 411045.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh….……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Pardeep Kamboj, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Vishal Goyal, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Abhay Sahu, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP No.2 is manufacturer of LP17059 paddy seeds and the OP No.1 deals in sale of seeds. The complainant alongwith his friends namely Vikas Sandhu, Sunil Mehla, Parshant, Karan Singh and Angad has purchased LP17059 paddy seeds from OP No.1 at the rate of Rs.355/- per KG. the OP assured that seeds is of good quality, thus the complainant has purchased 24 KG seeds. The complainant prepared nursery planted in 6.5 acres of land as per norms and instructions of the OP. After seen the situation of paddy crop, complainant stunned and surprise and immediately approached the OP No.1 and told about the situation of paddy crop. Firstly, OP postpone the matter and finally OP made inspection and found that some of paddy crop was ready to come out and some was come out. Thereafter, OP sent their representative Rajbir and Mahinder to the fields of complainant in the month of September and October 2019. They inspected the crop and told that seeds supplied to the complainant is of inferior quality and they assured that company would pay all the loss and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.35,000/- per acre . As per assurance given by the representative of OP, complainant has not moved any application before the Agricultural Office. The yield of crops from 6.5 acres came out only 96 quintals, whereas the average yield paddy in the near fields is approximately 36 qtls per acres. Due to inferior quality of seeds, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.2,50,000/- approximately as the yield of crops was very less. The complainant contacted several times to the representative of Ops and requested to pay the aforesaid loss amount, but they postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. The life of the farmer and his family members are fully dependent upon the income of crop, in case the crop of the farmer is destroyed then the life of the farmer as well as his family members automatically destroyed. It is pertinent to mention here that the Ops know very well about the inferior quality of seeds. The OP sold the inferior quality of seeds knowingly and intentionally only just to cause loss to the complainant and to some other farmers of the locality. The complainant requested the Ops to compensate but the Ops have not paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant served a registered Ad legal notice upon the OP on 07.01.2020 through his counsel but to no vain. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; abuse of process of law, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant had purchased 24 KG of paddy seed LP17059 and no agriculturist except the complainant and his friends Angad Singh has filed any complaint against the OP and even the agricultural produce of all other farmers who purchased the said seed from OP was very good and no complaint was received from any of the farmer. The complainant has filed the present complaint on false and frivolous facts with the only purpose to grab money from the OP. No technical committee was constituted as per the directions issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana vide its letter dated 03.01.2002. The complainant failed to retain the sample of crop for getting it tested in the government laboratory so that it can be ascertained that whether there was any defect in the seed. The Ops never sent their representative to the fields of complainant. When the representative had not ever visited for inspection, then the question of telling about inferior quality of seed is immaterial and the loss to the tune of Rs.35,000/- per acre is also immaterial and based upon wrong facts. The complainant has not moved application before the Agriculture office because there was no defect in the seed. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to suppression of true of material facts from the Hon’ble Commission; complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer; maintainable;, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant alleged that he alongwith his friends purchased the seeds but there is no purchase receipt attached with the complaint. The complainant claims to be an experienced agriculturist and therefore, there is no credibility in his false claim that he bought the seeds alongwith his friend. We have also made to understand that the one Mr.Vikas Sandhu named as friend in this para is a law practitioner and therefore, is aware of the requirement under the law in order to establish the consumer and service provider relationship. The complaint is filed as an afterthought and the complainant and his friends have conspired to gain illegal benefit by filing this bogus complaint against the OP No.2. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of Aadhar Card Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, copies of postal receipts Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, affidavit of Sunil Mehta, Prashant and Karan Singh Ex.C5, copy of Aadhar of Sunil Ex.C6, copy of Aadhar of Karam Singh Ex.C7,copy of Aadhar of Parshant Ex.C8, affidavit of Vikas Sandhu Ex.C9, copy of undertaking Ex.C10, copy of cheque Ex.C11, copy of seed leaf Ex.C12, certified copy of survey report of Vikram Singh Ex.C13 and copy of Aadhar card of Vikas Ex.C14 and closed the evidence on 08.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             Learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kewal Krishan Proprietor Ashanand Shiv Kumar as Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 16.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nikhil Nikam Ex.OPW2/A, copy of judgment Ex.OP2/I, copy of internal seed test laboratory report Ex.OPW2/II and copy of seed test laboratory report of telangana Seeds Development Corporation Ex.OPW2/III and closed the evidence on 23.01.2023 by suffering separate  statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has purchased LP17059 paddy seeds from OP No.1 when the complainant prepared nursery and planted in the fields as per norms and instructions of the OP and the complainant stunned and surprise to see the situation of the crop. Thereafter, complainant immediately approached the OP No.1 and told about the situation of paddy crop. Firstly, OP assured the complainant to compensate him but lateron refused to pay the same despite repeated requests. The complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- approximately as the yield of crops was very less due to supply of inferior quality of seed and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant had purchased 24 KG of paddy seed LP17059. The complainant has filed the present complaint on false and frivolous facts with the only purpose to grab money from the OP. The complainant failed to retain the sample of crop for getting it tested in the government laboratory so that it can be ascertained that whether there was any defect in the seed. The complainant has not moved application before the Agriculture office because there was no defect in the seed thus the OP no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

11.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant has failed to produce any technical report or analytical report based on scientific tests that substantiate that the seed in question were of inferior quality. Complainant has miserably failed to establish any defect in seed and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Complainant has alleged that he has purchased 24 KG seed of LP17059 from OP No.1 and said seed was of inferior quality. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant but the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant has failed to place on file any invoice vide which he had purchased the alleged paddy seed from the OP No.1. The complainant has further alleged that OP has not issued the invoice/bill to him. We do not agree with the contention of the complainant because it was the duty of the complainant to demand the invoice/bill at the time of purchase of seed from the OP No.1 and OP No.1 cannot be denied for that. The complainant has further alleged that the seed was of inferior quality but the complainant has failed to place on file any technical expert report in this regard. The complainant has not approached the Director Agriculture Department to inspect his fields and to assess the loss as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has only relied upon the affidavits of co-farmers namely Sunil Mehta, Parshant, Karan Singh Ex.C5 and Vikas Sandhu Ex.C9, they had allegedly purchased the seed from the OP No.1 and OPs have compensated them but said affidavits cannot help the complainant to get the compensation from the OPs. It is not possible that if the abovesaid farmers had suffered loss due to supply of inferior quality of seed by the Ops, then the complainant would have also suffered loss. Thus, without any expert/technical report, it cannot be held that the OPs have supplied the inferior quality of seed and the complainant has suffered loss.

14.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Dated:08.02.2024              

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                           Member                          Member