Haryana

Kurukshetra

249/2015

Rajender KUmar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Durga Pesticides - Opp.Party(s)

P.C.Tayal

10 Apr 2019

ORDER

Complaint no. 249/2015.

Date of instt. 5.10.2015. 

                                                                      Date of Decision: 10.4.2019.

 

Rajender Kumar son of Om Parkash, resident of village Khanpur Kolian, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

1. M/s Durga Pesticide Seed, Dealer all kinds of Seeds & Pesticides & Distributor of Makhteshim Nuziveedu Signet & Dhaanya Seeds, r/o opposite New Grain Market, Ladwa Road, Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, through its Partner/Proprietor.
2. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, Survey No.69, Kandlakoya undalpochampally (Vill.) Medchal (Mdl.) Ranga Reddy District Telangana- 501401, through its authorized signatory/M.D.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Smt. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.                                                 

Present:     Sh.  P.C.Tayal, Advocate for complainant.     

 Sh. S.K.Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

 Sh. Gur Lal, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rajender Kumar, against M/s Durga Pesticide Seed & another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant is cultivating the land in the village after taking about 13 acres of land on lease at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre from Devinder Singh etc. That complainant purchased 50 Kgs of Nuziveedu NP 121 variety of paddy seed from Op No.1, which is manufactured by Op No.2 on 18.5.2015 at the rate of Rs.100/- per Kg. worth Rs.5000/- for thirteen acres vide bill No.814 dated 18.5.2015 on the assurance of Op No.1 that the said seed is pure and of good quality and will fetch at least 28 quintals per acre yield. On the assurance of Op, the complainant sown the said seeds after proper preparations of the land and provided full water and fertilizers to the Nursery as per directions of the Ops. Thereafter, the complainant planted the said nursery in the above said 13 acres of land after preparing the fields in time and again provided full water, fertilizer, pesticide to the crop for good yield as per the instructions of the OPs. In the month of September, 2015 of its plantation, the complainant was surprised to see the uneven growth of plants. Then the complainant asked Op No.1 but he assured the complainant not to worry. After some more time, the complainant noticed that there are different types of plants in growth and he immediately reported the matter to OP No.1 but he did not pay any heed. When the plants grew more, it became clear that there are different type of plants in growth and the complainant again and again made complaint to the Ops but they did not pay any heed. After request for many times, the official of op no.2 visited the fields of complainant and assured the complainant that op no.2 will pay compensation to the complainant due to low/ substandard quality of seed supplied to the complainant. It is further averred that complainant moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra and a team of the agricultural scientists from the said office visited the fields of complainant and reported about the condition of the plants after thorough and careful inspection of 13 acres of land and reported that some of the plants have been matured to the extent of about 64% and there is no proper growth in the said plants and 36% plants have been seen un-matured, which would take about one month time to become mature and also reported that the said paddy seed is mixed up seed with another variety of plants other than NP-121. Thus, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.40,000/- per acre on account of lease amount, Rs.15,000/- per acre on account of expenses incurred on seed, fertilizers, pesticides etc. He also suffered losses due to non availability of fields for further sowing of ‘Toriya’ as the paddy crop took more time than told by the op and thus the complainant suffered total loss of Rs.80,000/- per acre in 13 acres of land. Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared  through Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate and contested the complaint by filing written statement raising preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, jurisdiction and suppression of material facts. It is submitted that true facts are that the complainant purchased 50 kilogram Nuziveedu NP 121 variety of paddy seed from the answering OP and the seed was of a best quality and the said seed was purchased by OP No.1 from OP No.2 vide order No.191240/1029008950 dated 15.5.2015. The OP No.1 purchased the seed in sealed condition and sold the same in the same sealed condition. There is no fault or imperfection in the above said seed. There is no complaint from any farmer except the present complainant. Rather, the farmers who purchased the said seed from the op no.1 have given their satisfaction note in the shape of their respective affidavits. It is further submitted that quality of the Nuziveedu NP 121 variety of paddy seed and germination thereof depends upon numerous factors like variety of the land, moisture in the land, weather/ climate and fertile power etc.  The complainant has procured good yield and now has filed this false and frivolous complaint. It is further submitted that complainant himself after mixing several varieties of seed sown the seed in the field. The report, if any, obtained by the complainant is false and the same has no value as the same has been obtained at the back of op and no notice regarding the alleged inspection was given to the op. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             OP No.2 appeared through Shri Gur Lal, Advocate and contested the complaint by filing written statement raising preliminary objections that the complainant has got no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; that the complainant has allegedly purchased the seed from Op No.1 which was produced by answering OP which is a well reputed company; that the complainant in collusion with some officials of the agriculture department procured a false report at the back of the Ops which is not binding upon the OPs; that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not filed any evidence to prove that the seed was defective. The alleged inspection report does not even whisper anything about any defect in the seed. This report only speaks that there was some loss to the crops and nowhere discloses that there was any defect in the seed. It is further submitted that no prior notice was given to the op before inspection of the field. The complainant has not mentioned about the cultivation practices adopted by him for better growth of the crop. It is further submitted that it is mandatory on the part of complainant to send the samples of the seeds in the laboratory for analysis as per procedure laid down under Section 13(1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act or the complainant  should have requested the Ops to arrange the seed samples of the same lot, which he has purchased for testing purpose but the complainant never approached the OPs about the alleged inferior quality of the seed. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

5.             The complainant has placed on file affidavit Ex.CW1/A and the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3,  CD Ex.C4, photographs Annexures C5 to C7. He also examined Sh. Sunil Kumar, SDO as CW1. The complainant also tendered documents Ex.C7 to Ex.C36 in additional evidence. On the other hand, OP No.1 proved on record affidavit of Sh. Arvind Kumar as Ex.RW1/A, photo stat copy of cash memo as Ex.R1, photo stat copy of delivery challan as Ex.R2, photo stat copy of Form “C” as Ex.R3, photo stat copy of another cash memo as Ex.R4, affidavit of Jai Kumar as Ex.R5, affidavit of Laxman Singh as Ex.R6, photo stat copy of another cash memo as Ex.R7, affidavit of Ram Pal as Ex.R8 and photo stat copy of another cash memo as Ex.R9 and thereafter closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.             From the copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.C3, it is proved on record that complainant purchased the seed in question from opposite party no.1 on 18.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.5000/-. The complainant has also placed on file affidavit of Devender Singh Ex.C8 to prove the fact that he had taken the agriculture land on lease basis.  He has also produced on record copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C10 and forms J on the file. The complainant in order to prove defect in the seed in question has placed on file copy of inspection report Ex. C2 wherein it is mentioned that there is mixture of 36% of another variety of the seed in the main variety of the seed and it will take one month more time in ripening. The complainant has also examined Sh. Sunil Kumar, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Karnal, the then Quality Control Inspector, Kurukshetra as CW1 who has stated that he has brought the summoned record pertaining to complaint moved by Rajinder. The complaint was marked to him by Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra to inspect the spot of the land mentioned in the application of Rajinder Singh and to submit report in this regard. In view of the application, he alongwith Sh. Balbir Singh Bhan, Asstt. Plant Production Officer, Kurukshetra and Sh. Gulab Singh, ADO Pipli-1 inspected the spot on 15.9.2015 and then after inspecting 13 acres paddy crops submitted the report which is Ex.C2, which bears his signatures as well as signatures of Gulab Singh and Balbir Singh Bhan. He has further stated that due to mixing of seeds farmer Rajinder Kumar suffered a loss of 36% in total 13 acres paddy crops as well as due to mixing in pre mature paddy seed in matured paddy seed. Quality of the grain is deteriorated. In his opinion, yield of paddy crops for one acre is approximately Rs.45,000/- to Rs.50,000/- or in other words from one acre land 30 quintal (coarse grain) per acre yield is produced. In his cross-examination he has stated that no notice was served to the op rather the telephonically message was given to the ops on the mobile of op no.1 and in reply to this the op no.1 had disclosed to him that he had already inspected the fields of the farmer and he had also informed the op no.2 to consider the complaint of the farmer. He has stated that he cannot produce the record regarding this conversation. He has also admitted that he has not examined any sample of the seed. He has stated that when he visited the spot, the crop was likely to be matured, hence the question of examining seed did not arise at all. The complainant himself got identified his fields and had not produced any record regarding the ownership of the fields/ land. He had inspected 13 acres land. He has denied the suggestion that he had not followed the prescribed procedure of Seed Act for inspection of the land and prepared the report Ex.C2 with the collusion of the farmer.

8.             During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the ops have strongly contended that since no notice was given to the ops before inspection of the field by the inspecting team, therefore, the report Ex.C2 obtained at the back of the ops has no value and is not valid and genuine report in the eyes of law. But we do not find any force in this contention because the above said Sh. Sunil Kumar, the then Quality Control Inspector, Kurukshetra has categorically stated that telephonic message was given to the ops on the mobile of op no.1 and op no.1 had disclosed to him that he had already inspected the fields of the farmer and had also informed op no.2 to consider the complaint of the farmer. Thus, it cannot be said that no intimation before inspection was given to the ops. The complainant has also placed on file a CD and photographs which go to show that inspection was done in the fields. From the report Ex.C2 as well as statement of Sh. Sunil Kumar, it is proved on record that complainant has suffered loss of 36% paddy crop in 13 acres of land due to supply of mixed seed. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for complainant in case titled as M/S. National seeds Corp. Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. Decided on 16.1.2012 (S.C) and Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. vs. P. Mulla Reddy 2004 (1) Judicial Reports Consumer 398 (Andhra Pradesh State Commission, Hyderabad) are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

9.             Now we assess the loss of crop to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he was expecting about 28 quintal of yield of paddy crop in one acre and he has suffered loss of 36% yield in 13 acres of land. But to our mind 28 quintal of yield in one acre is on higher side and thus we take it as 15 quintal in one acre and approximate loss to the complainant is of 4 quintal in one acre. The rate of the paddy crop of one quintal in the year 2015 was Rs.1300/- per quintal and therefore the loss in one acre of land comes to Rs.5200/- and in 13 acres of land, the total loss comes to Rs.67,600/- and the opposite parties are liable to pay the said amount to the complainant.

10.            In view of above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.67,600/- to the complainant for the loss of his 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 from the date of order till its actual realization. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:  10.4.2019.

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Neelam)           (Sunil Mohan Trikha)        

                Member                     Member