BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.
Complaint No.41/2017.
Date of instt.:15.2.2017.
Date of Decision:09.09.2021.
Pala Ram son of Shri Moti Ram, resident of village Sanwant, Tehsil Nigdhu, District Karnal.
…..Complainant.
Versus
- Bharat Beej Bhandar, near New Sabji Mandi, Salarpur Road, Kurukshetra, through its partner/ proprietor.
- Model Agritech India Ltd., 97, New Anaj Mandi, Indri, District Karnal through its Managing Director/ Authorized signatory.
……Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Before Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.
Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.
Smt. Neelam, Member.
Present: Shri Dharmender Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Vijay Saini, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Shri Anand Garg, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Pala Ram against Bharat Beej Bhandar & another, the opposite parties.
2. It is stated in the complaint that complainant purchased two bags (2x10) of paddy seed of marka PR-121 from OP No.1 vide bill No.77 dated 06.05.2016 for a total sum of Rs.800/- with the assurances given by OP No.1 about good quality of seed without mixing of any other variety. The said seed is manufactured by OP No.2. It is further averred that he had sown the said seed as per the instructions and by taking all the precautions in about four acres of land. That when the plants grown up, he came to know that the seed is not of good quality, rather it is mixed seed. He filed an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra for inspection of the fields, upon which, the officers from the said department alongwith other agricultural experts visited his fields and they gave their report about their inspection. As per that report, there are two types of crops and showing of mixed seeds to the extent of 37.5%. That rate of the PR-121 quality prevailing in the market was Rs.1510/- per quintal and the complainant suffered loss of 48 quintal and the loss of crop comes to Rss.72,480/-. Besides this, the complainant has also suffered loss of 20% of price of paddy crop due to mixed seeds which comes to Rs.24,160/-. Thereafter, he visited many times in the office of OPs and requested to compensate the said loss, but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; that complaint is barred under the provisions of Seeds Act, 1966; that complainant had purchased the seeds for commercial purpose, as such, the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act; that complainant has obtained the false report unilaterally, without any prior intimation to the answering op. The answering OP has sold the seed to the complainant in a sealed bag which has been purchased by the answering OP from OP No.2, that complaint is not maintainable as complainant had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (i) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, which provides analysis of the seeds from the competent laboratory to ascertain any defect in the seeds. On merits, the rest of the contents are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Upon notice, the Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed separate written statement taking similar preliminary objections as taken by OP No.1. It is also submitted that answering OP had manufactured quintals of paddy seeds in one lot and no complaint had ever been received regarding the seed manufactured by the answering OP from any farmer or dealer, except the present false complaint. It is further submitted that complainant had not sown the seeds as per recommendations of Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. The success of crops depends upon the weather condition, suitability and fertility of the area, water and irrigation facility, quality of fertilizer and various other factors. It is further submitted that complainant has not placed on record any revenue record or any bill regarding the pesticides and fertilizers used for the germination of paddy crop. As per the instructions of the Director Agriculture Department, Haryana, the field inspection must be carried out in the presence of five members team i.e. dealer, manufacturer, crop expert and two other authorized officers of agriculture department. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
5. The complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CW2 to Ex.CW4. The OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed the evidence. However, the OP No.2 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities and accordingly, evidence of the OP No.2 has been closed on 02.09.2019 by the order of this commission.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence available on the file.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased two bags 10 Kg. each of paddy seeds from the OP No.1 vide bill Ex.CW2 and sowed in the four acres of his fields. The crop was found mixed and on the application of the complainant fields were inspected vide report dated 21.9.2016 Ex. CW/3. Vide this report the crop of paddy sown in the fields of the complainant was found to be mixed by 37.5% . It is also argued that as per copy of jamabandi Ex.CW/4 owner ship on the land of the complainant is duly proved. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that at the time of sale of the crop, there was rate of Rs.1510/- per quintal and thus the complainant has suffered huge financial loss due to supply of mixed seeds of paddy by the Ops. Reliance has been placed on the authority Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt.Limited Vs. Rajpal and others 2014(3) CPJ 186 and also produced mark “A” and “B” on the file.
8. The learned counsel for the Ops while opposing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on the bill Ex.C2 batch number and lot number of the seeds is not mentioned. Further, it is argued that if there was mixing in the seeds, the complainant would have given notice to the Ops but it has not been done so. It is also argued that the alleged inspection report by the Agriculture Officers is fake one because as per instructions of the Haryana Government, it was incumbent upon the inspecting officers to have joined the complainant, dealer, representative of the manufacturer and at least two officers of the Agriculture Department, but it was not done so, therefore, the alleged report showing mixing in the paddy crop is fake one and is not trustworthy. It is also argued that before conducting the inspection of the fields of paddy where the said seeds were allegedly sown by the complainant, prior notice was required to be given to the OP-dealer and manufacturing company but it has not been done so. Further, it is argued that as per the report Ex.CW/3, the said report has been prepared on 21.9.2016 and as per the said report, the inspection is shown to have been done on 3.10.2016 which is not possible, therefore, the said report is proved to be a fake report and cannot be relied upon. It is also argued that no report from the patwari has been placed on record by the complainant to show that the complainant had sown the paddy crop on what khasra numbers and thus it is not proved that the said paddy crop was actually sowed on the land of the complainant and inspection of said fields was done or not. Learned counsel for the Ops has also argued that the complainant purchased only 20 Kg.of paddy and showed the same in four acres but as per procedure 8 kg. seed for one acre is required and thus the complainant used only 5 Kg.of seed for one acre instead of 8 Kg.of seeds. It is not the case of the complainant that he had purchased other bags of seed. He has not produced any document on record like Form “J” to show the extent production of paddy from his land and to prove the damages in the paddy crop of the complainant. During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Ops has also placed on the file makr “X” , “Y” and “Z” on the file.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the complainant had purchased than to what extent seeds were required for four acres of land. As per the Ops 20 kgs.of seeds were sufficient for only 2.5 acres of land but the complainant has used the same for four acres of crop as such this is a lapse on the part of the complainant. As per instructions of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana in the inspection committee, two officers of the Agriculture Department and one representative of concerned Seed agency and Scientists of KGK/KVK/HAU were required but it has not been done so. In the alleged inspection committee the Committee has failed to join the one representative of concerned Seed agency and Scientists of KGK/KVK/HAU and as such the alleged report is fake one and cannot be relied upon that the seeds supplied by the Ops were of substandard quality and having mixing of some other variety. Further, the complainant has failed to produce on record copy of form “J” to show as to what extent yield came from the fields of the complainant and at what rate the said crop has been sold and as such right determination of damages and production of paddy crop cannot be made. The inspecting committee has also not mentioned killa numbers and khasra numbers of the fields on which alleged paddy crop was sown by the complainant and the said land was owned by the complainant. The complainant has also failed to place on record copy of khasra girdwari to show the damages to the crop of the complainant. Thus, the complainant could not be able to prove his case on record as well as also failed to prove the mixing in the seeds as well as damages to the paddy crop, so it cannot be said that the complainant has suffered any loss due to fault of the Ops. Therefore, there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. The authority cited on behalf of the complainant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission:
Dt.09.09.2021 (Neelam Kashyap)
President
(Issam Singh Sagwal) (Neelam)
Member Member
