Haryana

StateCommission

A/882/2017

HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORP. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIRENDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.BADHRAN

26 Feb 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                                               First Appeal No.882 of 2017                                            Date of Institution: 11.07.2017

Date of Decision: 26.02.2019

 

1.      Haryana Seed Development Corporation, Regd. Office Bays No.3-6, Sector-2, Panchkula through its Managing  Director.

2.      Haryana Seed Development Corporation, Narnaul Opposite PACL Building, near Gusai Wali Atta Chakki, Rewari Road, Narnaul through its Sales/Distributing Officer.

…..Appellants

Versus

Birender Singh s/o Sh. Shri Rati Ram, Caste Saini, R/o Village  Kariya, Tehsil  Ateli, Distt. Mahendergarh.

…..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Manjula Sharma, Member

Present:              Shri P.K.Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondent already ex parte.

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that he purchased wheat seeds from the O.P.No.2 vide bill No.280184 dated 05.11.2015 for a sum of Rs.3750/-. The complainant had sown wheat seed in 2 ½ acres of land, which was taken on lease from Sadhu Ram.  The plants of the crop were very low in height.  He intimated the Ops and written complaint was also lodged to District Agriculture Officer, Narnaul on 28.03.2016.  Committee was constituted and the department officials visited the field of the complainant and observed that there was a loss of 60-70% in the crop of the complainant, but, Agriculture officer has assessed the loss to the extent of 50-60% in the report dated 26.04.2016. the Ops have supplied sub standard seeds to him.  He has suffered a loss of Rs.1,07,575/- on account of loss of crop. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that the O.Ps. have no knowledge about the visit of the officers of the Agriculture Department or about constitution of committee.  The complainant has failed to comply with the direction of the Director Agriculture.  The seeds supplied to the complainant were of best quality. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

3.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 02.06.2017 and  directed the O.Ps. to pay Rs.35,000/-  as compensation to the complainant for the loss of crop and also to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps.-appellants have preferred this appeal.

5.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Ravi Kant proxy counsel for Mr.S.S.Badhran, the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Mahipal S.Yadav, the learned counsel for the respondent. With his kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      In fact as per the matrix of the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that complainant had purchased wheat seeds from the O.P.No.2.  It is also not disputed that the land was taken by the complainant on lease from Sadhu Ram.  It is also not disputed that upon written complaint, the inspection team inspected the field of the complainant and found that there was a loss to the extent of 50-60%.  As per the inspection report, the height of the plant was very low.  The report of the expert had been prepared, which is available on the record, wherein it has been mentioned that the yield production is not good as was expected as per the quality of the seed purchased by the complainant. 

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that at the time of inspection, the representative of the manufacturer or the dealer was to be associated with the team.   The seed was not properly sown by the complainant and he has not obtained the report from any recognized laboratory under section 13 (1) of the C.P.Act, 1986, as such, the complainant is not liable to pay the same and as such, the impugned order be set aside and appeal be allowed.

8.      More so, no notice was given to the manufacturer before inspection.  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.Ps. 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 mention 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 due to poor quality of seeds.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects.  Hence, the impugned order dated  02.06.2017 is set aside.  The appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.17,500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

February 26th, 2019   Manjula               Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                           Addlk. Bench          Addl.Bench                 

S.K.