Haryana

StateCommission

A/648/2015

EAST WEST SEEDS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AZAD SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL NEHRA

03 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.648 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 03.08.2015

Date of Decision: 03.08.2016

 

1.      East West Seeds Pvt. Ltd. through its Authorized signatory Anand Kumar,Sr. RSM S/o Awdesh Parsad Age 44, R/o Anand Bharti Bhawan,  Sh.Arjun Enclave, Dhandera, rorkee Distt. Haridwar Utar Kand.

2.      India Seeds Corporation, 71, New Subji Mandi, Panipat, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Azad Singh S/o Nathuram, R/o VPO, Kaizer Pur Ahir, Tehsil Gannur, Distt. Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Vishal Nehra, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                    Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased 12 KGs of onion seeds against the payment of Rs.34,800/- from O.P.No.1. As growth of crop was very less, so he complained with District Horticulture Officer, Sonepat.  As per inspection report, there was 40% less germination due to which his three acres of land remained vacant and he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-.  He also spent Rs.20,000/- in preparing the field for cultivation besides expenses on fertilizers etc.  O.P.No.2 was manufacturer of the seeds.

So O.Ps. be directed to pay Rs.3,48,000/- as of compensation. 

2.      After notice opposite parties filed reply wherein it was alleged that he purchased opinion seeds for sale in the market and was not covered by the definition of ‘Consumer’.  The report of Horticulture officer was not binding because the same was against the instructions issued by Director Agriculture Haryana. There should have been three persons in the team and notice should have been given before visit which was not done.  His averments about growth etc. were not correct.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Sonepat (In short ‘District Forum’) accepted the complaint vide order dated 02.07.2015 and directed as under:-

“So, in our view, the complainant is also entitled to get refund of the seed price from the respondents to the tune of Rs.25000/- and thus, we hereby direct the respondents to make the  payment of Rs.25000/- (Rs. Twenty Five thousands) to the complainant also. With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that from the perusal of report Ex.C-3, it is clear that his fields were visited on 15.12.2014 and germination was found less by 40%.  This report cannot be ignored as submitted by the competent officer. Learned District forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned above.  In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Randhir Singh Redhu Vs. Director, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. 2015 (4) CLT 569. 

7.      However there is no dispute as far as opinion expressed by Hon’ble National Commission in Randhir Singh Redhu’s case (supra) is concerned, but, it is to be seen whether this report can be relied upon or not. Regarding inspection, Director Agriculture issued letter dated 03.01.2002, copy of which is Ex.R-1.  It is specifically mentioned therein that an officer of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KJK/KVK/HAU should be part of the inspection team. From the perusal of report Ex.C-3 it is clear that none of these officers were joined at the time of inspection. 

8.      More so, no notice was given to the manufacturer before testing the seed. 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.P. 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 mentioned 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.”

9.      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.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects.  So impugned order dated 02.07.2015 is set aside. The appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

10.    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.

 

August 03rd, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.