BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 714 of 2019
Date of Institution : 19.12.2019
Date of Decision : 17.05.2023.
Bhajan Nadha, aged 33 years son of Shri Jat Ram, resident of village Begu, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Babber Beej Bhandar, Shop No.58-59, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa Tehsil & District Sirsa through its authorized person.
2. Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (West), Maharashtra through its authorized person/ signatory (Manufacturer of Arize Swift).
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
BEFORE: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….. MEMBER
Present: Sh. Amit Verma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and his whole family members depend upon the sole earning out of agricultural produce of the complainant. The complainant with his family members is owner in possession of land measuring 41 kanals 18 marlas (as detailed para no.4 of the complaint) situated in village Begu, Tehsil and District Sirsa and land is still joint. In the month of May, 2018, the complainant approached the Op no.1 and showed his desire for purchase of best quality paddy seeds. That op no.1 after asking the kind, nature and irrigation sources as well as past result of the agricultural land from the complainant, supplied him five packets of paddy seeds vide bill No. BBB/18-19/2121 dated 21.5.2018 for the amount of Rs.3900/- stating it to be sufficient for five acres land. The op no.1 fully assured about the originality of the seeds and better result and he also assured that it will give yield of about 50 quintals per acre. That thereafter, the complainant as per the directions of the op no.1 and also being an experienced farmer, sown the paddy crop in the agricultural land. The work of sowing the paddy seeds was got done by complainant by hiring the sowing machine and complainant himself did hard labour over the management and supervision of the land and he was expecting a very good yield. The complainant supervised the agricultural field and irrigated it time to time properly and also spent a huge amount on better irrigation of the land, but all the dreams of complainant shattered and complainant suffered heavy shock, when he noticed that whole crop of complainant deteriorated and there was no germination in the paddy crop of complainant and there is germination of only 10 quintal per acre. The complainant on detecting this, immediately approached before the office of Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer by moving an application dated 16.10.2018 and the SDAO has specifically reported that the size of the grain was small in nature and has also reported that the dealer on behalf of the company has stated to the complainant that it will give a fruits in a very good quantity but in actually the yield of the crops are very low. It is further averred that thereafter, the complainant approached the op no.1 and complained about the damage/ loss to his crop due to supply of lower quality paddy seeds and also stated him about the assessment of damage/ loss to his crop, but op no.1 himself and on behalf of op no.2 did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and thrown all the papers on his face and rather rebuked the complainant and openly refused to do anything on the genuine claim of complainant. Since then complainant has been taking rounds to the ops time and again for payment of compensation, but to no effect. That an earlier complaint filed by complainant was got withdrawn by him due to technical defect with the permission to file a fresh complaint. Hence, this complaint seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the loss of crop alongwith interest and refund of the amount of Rs.3900/- i.e. price of paddy seeds, Rs.2500/- as labour charges, Rs.20,000/- spent by him on purchase of pesticides besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses from ops.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed reply submitting therein that earlier complaint filed by complainant was got withdrawn by complainant due to some technical defect and he wanted to file the complainant in some other appropriate Forum and not in this Commission and complainant neither explained the technical defect which he has cured nor the reason why he has filed the complaint in the same Forum from which it was earlier withdrawn. It is further submitted that complainant allegedly purchased 5 packets of paddy seed having 3 Kgs. each bearing batch No. 719800010 for his five acres of paddy crop from answering op for amount of Rs.3900/- and later on said paddy seed was allegedly proved to be defective whereas the seeds purchased by complainant were not sufficient for five acres of land against desired quantity of 6 Kg. per acre. The op no.1 has also raised several preliminary objections that op received the said seed in a sealed condition and sold the same in the same conditions to the Farmers/ Agriculturist and as such dealer is not responsible for the quality of the product; that complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action ever arose in favour f complainant and that neither the agriculture department nor the complainant himself issued any notice either verbally or in writing to the answering op before inspecting the field of complainant or before submitting the report regarding the losses suffered by the complainant, if any on account of any alleged defect in the paddy and that procedure prescribed under Section 13 (1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act which is mandatory has not been followed by the Agriculture Department and without that it could not be possible opined that the seed purchased by complainant was defective and that even complainant did not file any application to send the sample of the seed to the approved lab for testing. It is further submitted that even the answering op was having no opportunity to apply for sending the sample to an approved lab for its testing because no notice was issued and served to the answering op during the existence of the stock of the said seed of the same batch and that alleged inspection of field of complainant is defective one as per directions issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana. It is further submitted that from bare perusal of the report it is no where concluded that the less germination of the paddy crop was on account of defective seed but obviously was due to short quantity of the seed which was not sufficient for five acres of land and that less germination is also due to other factors. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 in its separate written version while resisting the complaint on similar lines of written reply of op no.1 has also asserted that op no.2 is manufacturer of high quality seeds and so far no complaint has been received by answering op from any farmer and from any part of India and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
6. On the other hand ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Proprietor of op no.1 as Ex. RW1/A and copies of documents Ex. R1 to Ex.R7.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. Admittedly on 21.05.2018 the complainant had purchased five packets of paddy seed from op no.1 for an amount of Rs.3900/- for his 41 kanals 18 marlas of agricultural land and said seed is manufactured by op no.2 and according to the ops seed used by complainant for more than 5 acres of land was not sufficient because the recommended quantity is 6 Kgs. of seed per acre and not 3 Kgs. per acre. In this regard, ops have also placed on file recommendation Ex.R5 according to which 6 Kgs. seed is required for one acre. So, it is proved on record that complainant purchased very less quantity of seed in question for his more than five acres of land. Further as per letter dated 03.01.2002 of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula written to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the Haryana State, the fields of farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/ KVK, HAU. However, from the inspection report Ex.C2, it is evident that no notice of the inspection was ever given to the ops and therefore, inspection was conducted in absence of the ops. Further more, no Scientist from any of above said institutions was associated in the inspection team. Even the report Ex.C2 is silent about the date and month of the inspection. So, the inspection report itself is defective. The ops have also placed on file laboratory test report Ex.R4 to prove that sample of the seed in question was got tested from the laboratory and its germination was found 92% and its purity was found as 99.9%. So, it cannot be said at all that the seed in question of the ops was of substandard and inferior quality. Moreover, good germination and good yield depends upon so many factors like quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer and pesticides and weather conditions. So, the complainant has failed to prove on record that ops have supplied misbranded and substandard quality of the seeds to him.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 17.05.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
