BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 358 of 2020
Date of Institution : 09.09.2020
Date of Decision : 04.11.2022
Anil Kumar son of Sh. Krishan Kumar R/o Village Haibatpur Tehsil and District Jind.
.….Complainant
Versus
1. East West Seeds India Pvt. Ltd. GUT No.66 Narayanpur (BK) Post Waluj, TQ Gangapur, District Aurangabad (M.S.)-431 133 through its Managing Director.
2. Shiv Beej Bhandar through its Proprietor/Manager near Old Subzi Mandi, Jind District Jind.
……Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. NEERU AGARWAL, MEMBER.
SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Maya Ram Devli, Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Batra, Adv. counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
ORDER:
Shorn off unnecessary details, complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he is an agriculturist and on 05.05.2020, he purchased seed of Cucumber Jumbo Green 25 gm F1 Hyb East, vide bill no.348 dated 05.05.2020 by paying a sum of Rs.2640/- from OP No.2 and sown the same in 03 Kanal land with every care and caution as per instruction & advise of OP. Complainant has further averred that he used every safety measures while sowing the seeds and also spent a sum of Rs.10,000/- on cultivation, fertilizers & watering etc. but only flowers were shown in the plants and no fruit grown out. So, complainant moved an application to District Horticulture Department, Jind, upon which, field of complainant was inspected and vide report no.161 dated 10.08.2020 D.H.O., Jind reported that there is no fruit in any of the plant and only several flowers are seen. Complainant has alleged that due to supply of sub-standard seeds by OPs, he has suffered irreparable loss, mental pain and therefore, he is entitled to get compensation of Rs.75,000/- for loss in fruit and Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses but OPs refused to pay the same. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant seeking relief as mentioned in prayer para of the complaint.
2. In pursuance to notices issued by this Commission, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered a joint reply raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of the complaint and neither cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it has been admitted that complainant purchased the alleged seed but averments with regard to sowing the seeds in his fields with safety measures as per instruction of OPs have been denied. Further the inspection report of Horticulture Department, Jind has been disputed being inspection conducted, if any, at the back of OPs. Besides it, Ops have averred that they never supplied sub-standard seeds to complainant as alleged rather there is no any mentioning in the inspection report (though disputed) that due to defective seeds, the fruits were not formed on the cucumber plants and thus the alleged report is false, bogus and not prepared as per Seed Act, Rules & Seed Control Order. Ops have further submitted that they have also sold the said cucumber seed to many other farmers but there is no any complaint from any other farmer w.r.t. no any fruit formation to the cucumber plants rather there are many other factors responsible for proper yield formation of fruit like rain fall, temperature, humidity, soil, physical condition and sowing method etc. whereas there is nothing on record to show that complainant had taken all requisite precautions in plantation of cucumber crop. In this way, Ops have urged that complainant is not entitled to any compensation from the OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. In order to prove the contention of complainant, learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of one Sh. Sachin Kumar, Territory Sales Manager of OP No.1 company as Annexure OPW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures OP-1 to OP-15 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and evaluated the record placed on file very carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that the Cucumber seeds so purchased by complainant from Ops did not germinate properly and on inspection by Horticulture Department, it was found that no any fruit ripened/matured on the cucumber plants inspite of growing of lot of flowers on the said plants. Counsel for complainant has further contended that seeds so sold by OPs were of poor quality and defective one resulting into no any crop of cucumbers because of which complainant has suffered huge loss in crop production and submitted that the act & conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and prayed for allowing the complaint. In support of his case, counsel for complainant has placed reliance on case laws titled as Shrihari Limraj Karanjkar Vs. Ajeet Seeds Limited and Anr., Revision Petition No.2796 of 2015 decided on 17.08.2020 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (ii) Haryana Seeds Development Vs. Jaswant Singh, Revision Petition decided on 27.02.2020 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (iii) M. Subba Rao Vs. Avula Venkata Reddy, Revision Petition No.3282 of 2003 decided on 22.03.2007 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi & (iv) P.Chowdaiah & Ors/ Vs. Sai Agro Agencies & Anr. First Appeal decided on 20.12.2010 by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad.
On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs urged that the complainant might have not followed the proper procedure for sowing the cucumber seed in question and spraying the pesticides in time and the inspection report given by the officers of the Horticulture Department is not tenable in the eyes of law because they have not followed the instructions of Govt./higher authorities by not associating at least one representative of the OP Seed Agency as well as one Scientist of KGK/KVK or HAU at the time of inspection of fields as mandated by Director Agriculture Haryana. Further, the inspection report given by the officer is not authentic one as they have failed to mention the cause of not ripening of the fruit on the cucumber plants either due to defective/inferior quality of seeds or due to any other reason. Counsel for Ops vehemently argued that the complainant has also failed to place on record, report of any laboratory to ascertain that the cucumber seeds in question sold by OP No.1 through OP No.2 were of inferior quality and defective one. Apart from this, OPs specifically urged that the seed in question was of good quality as the same was also sold to other farmers but no complaint was ever received regarding the sub-standard quality of the seed from any other farmer and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
To support their version, counsel for OPs placed reliance on the case law delivered in Criminal Appeal No.530 of 1997 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others decided on 13.09.1999 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein it has held that “Evidence Act, 1872-Section 45-Expert evidence must show that expert is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject- Expert has to show that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein, or that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject. An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is, to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions, so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration alongwith the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form of the basis of his conclusions.
Evidence Act, 1872- Section 45-Officer of State Government Horticulture Department cannot be labeled as an ‘expert’ to give opinion as to ‘fruit’ bearing capacity of the apple orchards in question’- In the instant case, person, who was examined as an expert for assessing the ‘fruit’ bearing capacity of the apple orchards in question’ stated nothing in his testimony to show that he had made any scientific study or research in assessing the productivity of apple trees in Himachal Pradesh. He does not even state whether he had undertaken any such work prior to the present case, No doubt as an officer of the Horticulture Department of the State Government he might have acquired some experience in the matter but that is not sufficient to make him an ‘expert in the field and to give the label of expert evidence to his testimony.’
Besides this, the counsel for Ops has also relied upon case law in First Appeal No.349 of 2014 titled as Vijay Singh Vs. M/s Om Shanti Sales Corporation and others decided on 19.08.2015 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula wherein Hon’ble State Commission has held that “Mere allegations of defective seeds cannot be conclusive proof unless and until supported by any cogent and convincing evidence. The report submitted by the Committee of Agriculture Officers nowhere reflects that the seeds supplied by the OP to the complainant was defective. Thus no liability can be fastened upon the OPs for the loss of crop of the complainant”. Counsel for Ops have also placed reliance on another case law titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Sawroop, Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014 decided on 26.11.2014 wherein the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi and the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sadhu & others II (2005) CPJ-13 SC has held that ‘the onus to prove that there was defective seeds etc. was on the complainant’. Further, the counsel for Ops also placed reliance on the case law titled as Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and Company & Ors. Reported in 2013 (II) CPJ Page 617 (NC) wherein it has been held that “petitioner has not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under the provision of Section 13 (1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Petitioner has also not moved an application before the concerned authority for getting seed of the same batch, number tested from any laboratory-Report of Agriculture Department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection-inferior quality of seed not proved.”
6. After hearing rival contentions of both the parties and perusing the record placed on file, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased the Cucumber seeds from OP No.2, produced/manufactured by OP No.1. The main grievance of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality & defective one and after sowing the same, no fruit yield received to him resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. To prove aforesaid contention, complainant has placed reliance on inspection report of District Horticulture Officer, Jind (Annexure C-2) wherein the officer(s) who inspected the fields of complainant has nowhere reported that non-growing/ripening of fruit on cucumber plants was due to defective or inferior quality of seed in question.
In view of the above, we are of the firm opinion that without getting the seeds in question tested from appropriate laboratory, it cannot be said that the seed in question was of inferior quality/sub-standard but the complainant neither himself got tested the seed in question from laboratory nor moved an application in this behalf to the concerned authorities which is mandatory under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Further, the report of Horticulture Officer nowhere stated that the seeds sold by the Ops were defective one or of sub-standard quality. Besides it, no any affidavit of officer of the Horticulture department who inspected the fields of complainant has been placed on record to authenticate the loss caused to the complainant. Thus we have no hesitation in holding that the inspection report (Annexure C-2) relied upon by complainant in this case is no report in the eyes of law and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were of sub-standard quality & defective one. On the contrary, Ops have placed on record Seed Testing Report dated 07.08.2019 (Anneuxre OP-2) prior to sale of seed in question and also placed on record affidavits of various farmers (Annexures OP-3, OP-5, OP-7, OP-9, OP-11, OP-13) wherefrom it is crystal clear that there was no complaint from any farmer with regard to inferior quality of cucumber seed of same variety/lot number.
Apart from the above, the case laws submitted by the counsel for complainant is not applicable to the facts & circumstances of present case since in the inspection report of District Horticulture Officer (Annexure C-2), the element of defective seed is missing whereas on the other hand, case laws produced by Ops counsels are fully applicable to the facts & circumstances of the case in hand.
Accordingly, the facts narrated above lead to the conclusion that the factum of complainant having suffered a loss due to sub-standard/inferior & defective quality of cucumber seeds so sold by OPs is not established by any scientific or any other evidence and further, relying upon the report of Horticulture Department alone, it cannot be stated that the version of complainant is true. So, in such a situation, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced on: (A.K. SARDANA) PRESIDENT
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal) Member
