Haryana

Kurukshetra

306/2016

Maggar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Fertlizer - Opp.Party(s)

Gajje Singh

03 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.306/20116.

Date of instt. 22.11.2016. 

                                                                       Date of Decision: 03.05.2019.

 

Maggar Singh son of Arjan Singh, resident of village Girdharpura, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Bharat Fertilizers, Booth No.25, Radaur Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor Yogesh Kumar.
2. Savannah Seeds Private Limited, 904, Tower “D”, Signature Tower, NH-8, South City-1, Gurgaon- 122001.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

 

Before               Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member

Smt. Neelam, Member

 

Present:         Sh.  Gaje Singh, Advocate for complainant.

 Sh. Rohit Jindal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

 Sh. J.K.Wadhwa, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Maggar Singh against Bharat Fertilizers & another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that complainant took two acres of land on lease from Harish Kumar Puri son of Panna Lal Puri, resident of Bhagwanpur Nagar Colony, Pipli for planting the paddy. The complainant purchased two bags of 3 Kgs. each of paddy seed seva 127 from op no.1 on 14.5.2016 vide receipt No.4519 for a sum of Rs.1500/- and converted the same into saplings (Paniri) and thereafter the complainant prepared the fields for plantation of paddy and ploughed the same for three times and also used the DAP Fertilizers in the said fields and also after watering the same complainant planted paddy in the said land. When the said crop came on padding stage, it was found that the said seed was of inferior type and mixed seed of various varieties. The plants were of two nature i.e. some were high in length and some dwarf seed took the padding prior to the long plants. On seeing this, the complainant approached the Op and requested to visit the fields but the Op refused. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to D.D.A. Kurukshetra, upon which a checking team was constituted, who visited on 7.9.2016 at the spot and gave their report that 78% seed of paddy were high in length and were on the padding process and 22% were fully ripened. It is further alleged that due to sale of inferior seed, complainant has suffered loss of Rs.15,000/- per acre i.e. total loss of Rs.30,000/-. That the complainant served a registered legal notice upon the op on 2.11.2016 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint and the complaint is an abuse of process of law; that complainant is not maintainable at all; that the complaint is barred by the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties as said paddy seed is manufactured by Savannah Seed Private Limited, which is well reputed manufacturing company and the answering OP purchased the same from M/s Laxmi Beej Bhandar, Near Punjab National Bank, Ladwa in sealed condition and the same was sold to the complainant in sealed condition and the said manufacturing company and M/s Laxmi Beej Bhandar have not been impleaded as party; that the product is up to the standard specification and there is no fault or imperfection in the same and there is no complaint from any quarter. On merits, it is submitted that the seed sold by answering op is of good quality. The alleged report has been obtained at the back of the answering op and as such the same has no value at all and is not binding upon the rights of answering op. The remaining contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.            OP No.2 contested the complaint by filing the separate written statement raising preliminary objections that the complainant has alleged that he purchased paddy seeds sava 127, manufactured by answering OP vide receipt No.4519 dated 14.5.2016 for a sum of Rs.1500/- from OP No.1 but the complainant has not provided any evidence to prove that he has sown the said paddy seed as are alleged to have been supplied by Op No.1 and has also failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant followed correct and prescribed agriculture practices for raising the contentious  paddy crop. Thus, it is clear that the complaint of the complainant is totally false and manipulated; that the complainant has not supported the allegations regarding defective seeds, the crop grown there from and the alleged losses sustained with any cogent evidence. It is further submitted that complainant as per his own version has purchased the alleged seeds for cultivation for commercial purposes i.e. for raising the rice seeds and selling the product in the market to derive profit there from. As such the complainant is not consumer as defined under Section 2 (d) (i) of the Act. It is further submitted that there are various other factors for loss of crop. It is further submitted that present complaint is also hit by Section 13 (1) (c) as no laboratory test of the said alleged seed has been got done and the said provision is mandatory in nature. It is further submitted that present complaint is also hit by rule 23-A of the Seeds Act. It is further submitted that no intimation at the time of alleged inspection was given to any representatives of seed agency. Further more no detail of the land which has been alleged to be inspected has been mentioned in the said report. It is further submitted that answering op no.2 sold 265170 Kgs. of Sava 127 seed in the region which includes 23680 Kgs. of seed sold through Luxmi Seed Bhandar from whom the op no.1 purchased the same and there is no report of any alleged loss from any quarter.  On merits, the other contents of complaint were denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

5.            Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to C8 and examined Sh. Satish Kumar, ADO. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/B, documents Ex.RW2/B. OP no.2 also examined Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Kurukshetra.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that due to supply of mixed quality of paddy seeds, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.30,000/- in two acres of land which he had taken on lease basis and the ops are liable to compensate the complainant for the above said loss. He has further contended that loss of crop is duly proved from the report of experts team Annexure C5 and prayed for acceptance of the complaint. He has relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as decisions of Hon’ble National Commission in cases titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Vijay Kumar & Anr. Decided on 14.6.2018 (NC), National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Naliz Narsimha Rao, 2009 CJ 685 (NC), H.N. Shankara Shastry Vs. Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka, (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 230 and M/s Dharampal & Sons & others vs. Som Prakash, RP No.4672 of 2012 decided on 8.5.2014.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that first of all no notice before inspection of the fields of complainant was given to op no.1. Secondly, there is no fault of op no.1 as the seed in question was sold to the complainant in sealed packet as received from distributor and manufacturer and therefore, loss if any cannot be attributed to dealer op no.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1. He has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as M/s. Prem Brother through its sole prop. Vs. Bharpur Singh, 2016 (1) CPR 833 and decision of the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Jallandhar Singh vs. Tau Agrotech Private Ltd. and Anr. 2010 (3) CLT 504.   

9.             Learned counsel for op no.2 has contended that no jamabandi regarding ownership and no khasra girdawari regarding sowing of paddy crop has been produced by complainant, so it is not proved on record that complainant took land on lease basis and that he has sown paddy crop in two acres of land. He has further contended that no notice before inspection of the fields of complainant was given to the representative of any of the ops, which was mandatory. He has further contended that there is no exact report on the file that on what basis there was loss of 22% of crop. He has further contended that provisions of the rule 23-A of the Seed Act, 1966 have not been complied with and prayed for dismissal of complaint. He has placed reliance on the case titled as Amrik Singh vs. Khalsa Seed Store, decided by our Predecessors on 17.1.2017.

10.            We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

11.            The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also placed on file copy of lease deed Annexure C1 and bill Annexure C2, the perusal of the which shows that complainant purchased the seed from op no.1 on 14.5.2016 for a sum of Rs.1500/-. The complainant in order to prove the fact of loss of his paddy crop, has placed on file copy of inspection report Annexure C5 according to which there is possibility of loss of 22% in crop. The inspecting team inspected the fields of complainant on 7.9.2016 in two acres and also inspected the fields of one Baldev Singh on the same day in his ten acres of land as is evident from the inspection report. The complainant has also examined Sh. Satish Kumar ADO, office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra one of the member of the inspecting team who has proved the application Ex.C1 and inspection report Ex.C2. OP no.2 has examined Sh. Suresh Kumar, SDO who has stated that as per letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R1, when a complaint is received by the office from a farmer, a committee of three persons is to be formed by DDA consisting two officers of Agriculture department and one representative of the seed company. Though he has admitted that in the record which has been brought by him, there was no notice ever given at the time of inspection of the fields of the complainant to the representative of the seed company but he voluntarily stated that he telephonically informed the representative of the seed company namely Sh. Himanshu Chauhan to come present for the inspection of the complainant’s fields and he told him that he has already inspected the fields two times with seed dealer M/s Bharat Fertilizer and this fact was confirmed by the complainant himself. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that no notice was given to the ops before inspection of the fields by the agriculture officers, complainant cannot be said to be at fault in this regard. The Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in case titled as M/s Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat Ram and others, 2014 (1) CLT 624 has held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (g)- Defective seeds (Bajra)- Effect of non-joining seed dealer in field inspection- Bajra seed found defective having been mixed with some other variety and not pure- Plea of OP that the seed supplied was tested and passed by the Seed Certification Agency and field not inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana- Dealer of seed not joined by the experts during the inspection of fields of complainant- Contention repelled- Held- It was the duty of the officials of Agriculture Department to get the field inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana- The team not being constituted as per the letter of the Director of Agriculture and not associating the dealer of the seed, was not the fault of the farmer because he was not supposed to be aware that the representative of the company was to be associated in the team- It was for the officials of Agriculture Department to call the representatives of the company- It was not the fault of the farmer at all, for which he would not be allowed to suffer-Appeal dismissed.

12.            In so far as non production of jamabandi and khasra girdawari is concerned, it may be mentioned that complainant has placed on file copy of lease deed as Annexure C1 from which it is proved that he has taken land of Harish Kumar Puri on lease basis. In so far as identity of the field inspected by the team of agriculture department is concerned, the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Vijay Kumar & anr. (supra) has held that there could be no reason for the complainants to take the said team to the field of some other person nor would any other person allow the complainants to project his field as the field of the complainants.

13.            The next point raised by learned counsel for ops is that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13 (i) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and rule 23-A of the Seed Act, 1966 but we see no substance in this contention of learned counsel for ops because the ops could produce the sample and could send the same to the laboratory for analysis but that has not been done by the ops. Further more, the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as M/s Dharam pal & sons and others vs. Som Parkash (supra) has held that “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 13 (1) © & Seed Act, 1968, Section 23A- Defective seeds (Paddy)- Officers of Agriculture Department inspected the fields and submitted their report- Complaint accepted on the basis of report of agriculture department- Plea of OP that seeds not got tested from the laboratory nor seed send to Seed Analyst for analysis- Plea not tenable. The above said authorities cited by learned counsel for complainant are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The authorities cited by learned counsel for ops are not disputed but are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

14.            Now we assess the loss of crop to the complainant. The complainant has alleged loss of Rs.30,000/- in two acres of land i.e. Rs.15,000/- per acre but we take it as Rs.8,000/- per acre and thus the total loss to the complainant comes to Rs.16,000/- and the ops are liable to pay the said amount of Rs.16,000/- to the complainant.

15.            In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.16,000/- to the complainant for the loss of crop within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the said amount from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:  

Dt.03.05.2019.                                     (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                          President

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra

 

 

 

                (Sunil Mohan Trikha)          (Neelam)

                          Member                 Member