THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 426 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 14.09.2011.
Date of Decision: -17.03.2017.
Shankarlal age 56 years son of Sh. Khayaliram, resident of Kalod, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Chaudhary Beej Bhandar near turn and Goyal Petrol Pump Siwani Mandi, District Bhiwani through its Proprietor.
- National Seeds Corporation Limited (NSC) (A Govt. of India Undertaking) Beej Bhawan, PUSA Complex, New Delhi.
- M.S. Jagdish Store, Tilak Bazar, Hisar through its Proprietor.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Satender Ghangas, Advocate for complainant
Shri C.D. Singla, Advocate for Ops no. 1 & 3.
Shri Ajay Allawadi, Advocate for OP no. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased gawar cluster seeds of brand HG-365 amounting to Rs. 1480/- vide bill receipt No. 2913 dated 27.06.2011 from OPs. It is alleged that the respondents had assured the complainant that the seeds so purchased by the complainant are very much trusted and good yielding. It is alleged that after sowing the seed and by the passage of time it is found that the growth of gawar plant has gone to the height ranging from 5 feet and it did not carry any fruit as such the complainant is nothing to get from the entire 10 acres of land. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.HeHe
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent is retailer in seeds of reputed manufacturing companies which are renowned in India. It is submitted that there is no consumer dispute between the parties. It is submitted that the answering respondent bought the seed in question from M/s Sonu Beej Bhandar, Siwani Mandi, who further purchased from M/s Jagdish Store, Tilak Bazar, Hisar in sealed packets and kept the same in the same condition in which it was acquired by him, a duly licensed concern. It is submitted that the complainant has no grudge regarding germination of seed in question. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant has never made any complaint to the answering respondent nor made any complaint to its local office. It is submitted that there is no such complaint received from the farmers who had purchased the seed in question from our authorized dealer. It is submitted that variation of condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of seed but it may be due to some other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in the surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture contents at the time of sowing and soil physical condition. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. On the other hand, counsels for Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant at this stage made request to produce the documents on behalf of the complainant and he was allowed to place the documents on the file. He reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant purchased the seed in question from OP no. 1 vide bill no. 2913 dated 27.06.2011 Annexure C-2 for a consideration of Rs. 1480/-. He submitted that the complainant sowed the seed in his fields. From the germination of seed the plants were gone up to the height of 5-6 feet but there was no fruit on the plants, hence the complainant did not get any yield from the seed. He submitted that on the request of the complainant a team was constituted, who inspected the fields of the 43 farmers. The team inspected the fields of the farmers on 26.09.2011 and they submitted their report dated 26.09.2011 Annexure C-9. He submitted that as per the inquiry report Annexure C-9, the seed supplied by the Ops was of poor quality. Therefore, the complainant suffered losses due to the inferior quality of seed. In support of his contention he referred the Farad Jamabandi Annexure C-4, Khasra Girdawari Annexure C-5 and Annexure C-7. He contended that the Ops are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-
I PHI Seeds Ltd. & Anr. Versus Sri Subramanya & Anr. IV (2015) CPJ 512 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
II M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Versus M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another in Civil Appeal No. 7543 of 2004 vide order dated 16.01.2012 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
III Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. Dhirubhai Ambani Life Insurance Science Centre Versus Umesh Singh Chandan Singh Saddiwal and another 2016 (1) CLT 289 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
IV Leadbetter Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Versus Tanneru Rangaiah & others 2015 (4) CLT 361 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
8. Learned counsel for OP no. 1 & 3 and counsel for the OP no. 2 reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. They submitted that the seed in question was certified seed manufactured by the State Corporation of India Limited a Government of India Undertaking. They submitted that there is no complaint of the germination of the seed in question by the complainant. The yield from the crop depends on various factors, like condition of soil, irrigation, moisture content in the air, rain fall and use of pesticides etc. They submitted that the Rajasthan State Seed and organic Production Certification Agency Jaipur, Seed Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture Shri Ganga Nagar Rajasthan has issued certificate for various lots sold by the manufacturer of seed, which are running into 30 pages Annexure R-2. Vide said certificates under Section 9 of the Seed Act 1966, confirmed the standard prescribed for certification under the seed act. They further submitted that the inquiry report dated 26.09.2011 submitted by the inspecting team relates to 43 agriculturists. They submitted that the said team while inspecting the field of the consumer did not call the Ops in compliance of the instruction of Government of Haryana issued vide memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002. Learned counsels for the Ops contended that the inquiry team has not mentioned in their report dated 26.09.2011 Annexure C-9, that the seed was of poor quality. The counsels for the OPs stressed that the complainant has not followed the procedure to get analysis of the seeds as per the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They also submitted that the team has mentioned in their report that they inspected the fields of the farmers on 26.09.2011. The said farmers belong to different villages and moreover the inspection of fields of 43 persons is not possible in one day. Hence the said report cannot be relied upon because it is prepared without inspecting the fields of the complainant. Learned counsels for the Ops relied upon the following judgments in support of their contention:-
I Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Versus Sadhu & Another in Civil Appeal No. 1308 of 2005 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
II Mahyco Seeds Company Ltd. Versus Basappa Channappa Mooki and Others with Civil Appeals Nos. 2425, 2426, 2427 of 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 2428 of 2008 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
III Indian Farmers Fertilizers and another Versus Sh. Bhup Singh in Revision Petition No. 2144 of 2014 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
IV Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited Versus Gadesula Harinath & others 2014 (2) CLT 103.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The inquiry report dated 26.09.2011 submitted by the team of four persons is related to 43 agriculturists. The said inquiry report does not disclose dates on which the fields of the respective 43 agriculturists were examined by them and nothing has been mentioned about notice to the Ops i.e. the seller and producer of the seed regarding the inspection of the fields of the agriculturist. The procedure laid down by the Government of Haryana vide Memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002 has not been followed in this case to examine the crops of the complainant. As per the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has not taken any step to procure the analysis of the seed to prove the quality of the seed. On the other hand, the Ops have produced the report of seeds as Annexure R-2 containing page No. 1 to 30. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the seed supplied by the Ops was of poor quality. Considering the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:17.03.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member
