Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/214/2020

Jaswant Singh S/o Sher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ganpati Khad Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Saini

20 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISISON, KURUKSHETRA

Complaint No. 214 of 2020

Date of institution: 10.07.2020

                                Date of decision: 20.05.2024

 

Jaswant Singh Vs. M/s Ganpati Khad Bhandar, New Grain Market Gate, Khanpur Kalian, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

Versus

 

1.     M/s Ganpati Khad Bhandar, New Grain Market Gate Shop No. 114-B,Pipli, Kuruksehtra through its proprietor.

2.     PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. The V-Ascendas Aria Block 12^th Floor, Plot No. 17, Software Units Lay out, Madhapur, Hyderabad T.S. India PIN 500081.

 

…Opposite parties.

 

CORAM:    DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

NEELAM, MEMBER.

RAMESH KUMAR, MEMBER.

 

Present:   Shri Rahul Saini, Advocate for complainant.

Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the OP No.1.

Shri Anmol Saluja, Advocate for the OP No.2.

 

ORDER

       

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2.             Briefly stated, it is the case of the complainant that being assured by the OP No.1, on 13.02.2020, complainant purchased 14 begs of seeds of Corn Mark Pioneer 1844 of Rs.22,400/-.  The bill is Ex. C-1.  At the time of selling of said seeds, opposite parties have assured the complainant that the said seeds have best quality hybrid corn pioneer seeds 1844 and also certified by Government Agency. Complainant sowed the said seeds in 7 acres of land.  The complainant further averred that he noticed that the said corn not grown up and the same were of inferior quality. Thereafter, complainant approached the Agriculture Authority and requested them to inspect his fields. The Agriculture Authority of the said Department visit at the spot and they reported that the same area of land growth of seed is Zero and the same area, the level of growth of seed is very low and which has been caused great financial loss of the complainant. The inspection Report is Ex. C-3.  The complainant further averred that he contacted OP No. 1 and asked him to compensate the losses for defective seeds.  The Op No.1 assured him that he will get compensation from the OP No.2 and also will pay same to the complainant within a short period. After some time, he contained again the OP No.1 for requesting the same, but OP No.1 refused by saying that he has not a single penny for him as compensation.  The complainant further averred that due to negligency on the part of the OPs, he suffered a loss of Rs.3,50,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice of OPs No1, Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocate appeared and filed its written statement, while taking the preliminary objections with respect to the locus standi, and maintainability etc. controverted all the material assertion of the complainant and contended specifically by pleading inter-alia that the Corn Seed is produced by Op o.2. The OP No.1 has received the Corn Seed against the Bill from Jain Trading Company  Shop No. 192, New Grain Market, Kurukshetra OP No.2 in a sealed condition and sold the product in sealed condition.  The said product is upto the standard specification and there is no fault or imperfection in the same.  Moreover, when the product is manufactured by the company, the same was manufactured by taking full precautions and when the same is found upto standard specifications, only then the same is sent in the market.  Complainant purchased 14 bags of Corn Seed from the OP No.1 and the seed was of a best quality a bill was issued in the name of the complainant. The OPs are dealing in the sale of best quality seed. There is no fault or imperfection in the aforesaid seed. The Quality of the Corn seed and germination thereof depends upon numbers of factors like variety of the land, moisture in the land, whether/climate and fertile power etc.  It is pertinent to mention here that OP No.1 did not receive any complaint regarding this particular seed from any other farmer rather they appreciated the yield grown from this seed.

4.             Shri Anmol Saluja, counsel of the OP No.2 also filed written statement and stated that the complainant failed to prove from whom he has purchased the seed and what is the batch number and date of manufacture and date of expiry of seeds alleged to be of inferior quality.  The counsel further argued that the OP No.2 never receive any complaint prior to the present complaint regarding poor quality of seeds.  The said seeds are supplied throughout the country and the company has not received any complaint regarding the seeds from any other farmer. 

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A and documents EX. C1 to Ex. C5 and closed the evidence on 24.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.  On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents R-1 to R-5 on 21.9.2022.  OP No.2  tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RW2/A and closed the same on 21.03.2023.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             Shri Rahul Saini, counsel of the complainant argued that being assured by the OP No.1, on 13.02.2020, complainant purchased 14 begs of seeds of Corn Mark Pioneer 1844 of Rs.22,400/-.  The bill is Ex. C-1.  At the time of selling of said seeds, opposite parties have assured the complainant that the said seeds have best quality hybrid corn pioneer seeds 1844 and also certified by Government Agency. Complainant sowed the said seeds in 7 acres of land.  The counsel of the complainant further argued that complainant noticed that the said corn not grown up and the same were of inferior quality. Thereafter, complainant approached the Agriculture Authority and requested them to inspect his fields. The Agriculture Authority of the said Department visit at the spot and they reported that the same area of land growth of seed is Zero and the same area, the level of growth of seed is very low and which has been caused great financial loss of the complainant. The inspection Report is Ex. C-3.  The counsel of the complainant also argued that hat complainant contacted OP No. 1 and asked him to compensate the losses for defective seeds.  The Op No.1 assured him that he will get compensation from the OP No.2 and also will pay same to the complainant within a short period. After some time, he contained again the OP No.1 for requesting the same, but OP No.1 refused by saying that he has not a single penny for him as compensation. 

8.             Learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued that the Corn Seed is produced by Op No.2. The OP No.1 has received the Corn Seed against the Bill from Jain Trading Company  Shop No. 192, New Grain Market, Kurukshetra OP No.2 in a sealed condition and sold the product in sealed condition.  The said product is upto the standard specification and there is no fault or imperfection in the same.  Moreover, when the product is manufactured by the company, the same was manufactured by taking full precautions and when the same is found upto standard specifications, only then the same is sent in the market.  Complainant purchased 14 bags of Corn Seed from the OP No.1 and the seed was of a best quality a bill was issued in the name of the complainant. The OPs are dealing in the sale of best quality seed. There is no fault or imperfection in the aforesaid seed. The Quality of the Corn seed and germination thereof depends upon numbers of factors like variety of the land, moisture in the land, whether/climate and fertile power etc.  It is pertinent to mention here that OP No.1 did not receive any complaint regarding this particular seed from any other farmer rather they appreciated the yield grown from this seed. Shri Anmol Saluja, counsel of the OP No.2 argued that complainant failed to prove from whom he has purchased the seed and what is the batch number and date of manufacture and date of expiry of seeds alleged to be of inferior quality.  The counsel further argued that the OP No.2 never receive any complaint prior to the present complaint regarding poor quality of seeds.  The said seeds are supplied throughout the country and the company has not received any complaint regarding the seeds from any other farmer. 

9.             Ex. C-3 is the inspection report given by Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Quality Control Officer and Block Development Officer. In this report, it has been stated by the Joint team of Agriculture Department that on 08.04.2020, the seed of Jaswant Singh son of Shri Sher Singh had purchased Maize seed No. 1814 of Pioneer Company from M/s Ganpati Khad Bhandar, Pipli, District Kurukshetra.  They were told by Jaswant Singh that the seeds were bad quality due to which huge loss was caused to Jaswant Singh.  On the complaint filed by the complainant, the concerned Agricultural Committee gave notice to the dealer as well as the shop-keeper telephonically, but both of them did not reach on the spot.  Since the dealer not having the stock of relevant seed, hence, the sample of the seed could not be taken. Reports of Agricultural Experts show that crops failed because of defective seeds. Due to bad quality of the seed given by the OPs, the crops of complainant did not grow due to which huge financial loss to the complainant.  Ex. C-3 to the claim of the complainant, the seeds supplied by OPs No. 1 & 2 are to be proved bad quality. The complainant placed on the record the reliance laid down in case title “Mohan Seeds Company Vs. Gurbachan Singh etc.” passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi decided on 03.11.2018 in which it is held that the complainant cannot be faulted for not having done so. Committee constituted by Deputy Director of Agriculture, comprised of experts and assessed the loss based upon its technical expertise.

10.           In view of the aforesaid discussions, a award of sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with 9% penal interest within 45 days from today from the date of filing of the complaint by the Ops jointly and severally. The complaint is accepted which is assessed Rs.11,000/-. 

11.           In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open 20.05.2024

                                                                 (Dr. Neelima Shangla)            

                                                               President,

                                                               DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

(Neelam)                (Ramesh Kumar)

Member                   Member