Haryana

Ambala

CC/176/2022

Kulwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Garg Pesticides and seed Store - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Jain

15 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	176 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	03.06.2022
Date of decision	:	15.07.2024

Kulwant Singh son of Sh. Ajmer Singh R/o H.No.1402, VPO Mullana, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, Haryana.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Garg Pesticides and Seed Store, Near Bus Stop, Dhanaura, Dosarka To Sadhoura through its Proprietor.
2. Hari Bhumi Seeds, Plot No.14-20, Satguru Vihar, Chandan Nagar, Balsamand Road, Hissar, through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Ashish Jain, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Ashish Sareen, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

i) To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.7 lacs alongwith interest @12% p.a. to the complainant, qua the damaged crop.

ii) To pay Rs.25,000/ as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

iii) To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

iv) Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission, may deem fit.

 

2.        Brief facts of the case are that OP No.2 is the manufacturer/ producer of the seeds and OP No.1 is its distributor. On 27.02.2022, the complainant purchased 3 packets of sunflower seed of Kranti Gold-95 weighing 2 bags each of total 6 kgs. vide invoice No. 1577 dated 27.02.2022 of Rs.11,100/- for sowing the same in 3 acres of land.  OP No.1 on behalf of the OP No.2 assured the complainant that the sunflower seeds are of high quality and will give best yield. On this assurance, the complainant sowed the seeds in his land on 28.02.2022.  After some days, the complainant observed that the seeds were not grown up, as a result of which the matter was reported to the OPs. The matter was also reported to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Ambala for investigation of the fields in which the sunflower plants were found defective. Accordingly, a team was constituted and the said team inspected the fields of the complainant on 07.04.2022, who vide report dated 19.04.2022, opined that it is found that only 20 to 25% of seeds were grown and the complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 75% to 80%. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs alongwith the report dated 19.04.2022 and requested them to compensate him for the loss suffered, but to no avail.  Legal notice dated 27.04.2022 was also served upon the OPs to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him but to no avail.  Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint; the complainant had taken up the cultivation of sunflower seeds in his fields for commercial purposes i.e. for raising the sunflower seeds and selling the produce in the market to derive profit therefrom, as such, the complainant is not "consumer" as defined under consumer Protection Act; this complaint is not maintainable etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.1 is a dealer of OP No.2 and the seeds in question were sold to the complainant via sealed packet. The germination and proper yield is based on various factors. In the case of Ram Chander Versus Laxmi Beej Bhandar reported as (1, 1994-CPJ-33) and R.S. Banumathi Versus Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company limited reported as (1 1992 CPJ 248) the Hon'ble Court held that the proper yield is based on various factors such as proper preparation of the land, fertilization, pest and disease control, proper irrigation, climate and seasonal conditions which are not in the control of any human agency. Under the Seed Act, 1996 (which is the special enactment) remedy is available for the complainant to get his grievance redressed. The complainant has not placed on record the empty bags of seeds. The complainant has not provided any evidence to prove that he had sown the same seeds as are alleged to have been supplied by the OPs.  The complainant has also failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had followed correct and prescribed agricultural practices for sowing the sunflower seed. The complainant has neither produced any evidence to the effect that he is owner of Land in question nor disclosed the fact that how much seed is required for one Acre. The complainant before filing this complaint, did not approach to the Seed Inspector regarding less germination of the seeds in his field. In fact, under the Seed Rules, 1968, under Rule 23-A, Seeds Inspector is duly bound to investigate the cause of the failure of the seeds by sending a sample of the lot to the seed Analyst for a detailed analysis in the State Seeds Testing Laboratory. Rule 23- A of the said Seed Rules is as under for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Commission:-           RUle 23A

Action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him:-

(1) If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks of labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complainant for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the state Seed Testing Laboratory. He shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the competent authority.

(2) In case, the Seed Inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standard notified by the Central Government, he shall launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act or these Rules."

4.           The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd Versus Sadhu and another reported as (2005) 3 SCC 198 has held that there has to be a specific report prepared by the Expert Committee" that the germination is not proper due to inferior quality of seeds. In the present case admittedly complainant has not produced any such report, except one report given by the officers of the Agriculture Department, which has been made in the absence of the OPs. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Vikas Lather, Proprietor of OP No.2-M/s Hari Bhumi Seeds as Annexure OP-A and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by supplying defective seeds which resulted into damage of crops of the complainant thereby causing him financial loss and also mental agony and harassment, as such, the OPs are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice. 
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs while reiterating the objections taken in the written version submitted that the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the seeds sold to him were actually of inferior quality. He further submitted that the report dated 19.04.2022, Annexure C-4, given by the officers of the Agriculture Department placed on record by the complainant cannot be relied upon because the same has been prepared in the absence of the OPs. 
9.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether the complainant has been able to prove his case or not. It may be stated here that to prove his case, the complainant is relying upon the report dated 19.04.2022, Annexure C-4 having been issued by the Officers of the D.D.A., Agriculture Department, Ambala wherein it has been opined that in the entire field, the normal crop of sun flowers has come only to the extent of 20% to 25%; less crop of sunflower to the extent of 75% to 80% is found in the field of the complainant; that the complainant has suffered a loss to the extent of 75% to 80% of yield. Whereas the plea of the OPs is that no reliance can be placed on the said report because no notice regarding inspection of the crop by the Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ambala was received by them and the inspection was done in their absence. In the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited Vs. Ram Sarup CLT 2014-63 (NC), it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that report obtained without notice to the OPs cannot be relied upon. Except these reports, no other evidence has been placed on record by the complainant, thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the above-referred case, we are of the opinion that the report given by the officers of the Agriculture Department cannot be relied upon as the same has been prepared in the absence of the OPs.  
10.           At the same time the complainant has also failed to place on record, report of any laboratory to ascertain that the seeds in question sold by the OPs to him were of inferior quality. In Devender Kumar & Ors Vs. Amsons Lab Private Ltd.& Ors. reported in CPJ 2014(IV) page 575 the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  has held that Purchase of pesticide-Defect-Damage to crop-Loss suffered-Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission allowed appeal-Hence, revision-Complainants have not placed on record any laboratory report to substantiate that crops were damaged 100% due to application of pesticide-Report of Agriculture Development Officer only reveals that there was 100% damage to wheat crop-These officers have not carried out any test to ascertain whether 100% damage to wheat crop was due to application of purchased pesticides or not-Defects not proved.
11.           As far as reliance placed by the learned counsel for the complainant on Mohan Seeds Company Versus Gurbachan Singh and another, RP No.27 of 2013 decided on 03.11.2022  is concerned, it may be stated here that in this case, the facts are totally different to that of the case in hand. In that case, the Hon’ble National Commission has placed reliance on M/s National Seeds Corporation Limited Versus M.Madhusudan Reddy and Anr., Civil Appeal No.7543 of 2004, in which the District Commission had itself appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the field, who came to the conclusion that the seeds in that case were found defective but still the opposite parties failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. Thus, it appears that it was under some different facts and circumstances of the case that the Hon’ble National Commission has come to the conclusion that report of the technical experts under the circumstances of the case, as provided under  Section 13 (1) (c) was not feasible. Under these circumstances, no help can be sought for by the complainant from Mohan Seeds Company’s case (supra). especially, when earlier to this decision passed in Mohan Seeds Company’s case (supra)., the Hon’ble National Commission in Devender Kumar & Ors. (supra) in the absence of laboratory report qua the defective seeds, the seller cannot be held responsible in any manner.  It is significant to mention here that in case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Bhup Singh, in Revision Petition No.2144 of 2014, DOD: 9.4.2015, it is observed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi that the germination of any kind of seed, is based on so many factors, such as, proper preparation of the land, fertilization, proper pesticides, proper irrigation, climate, and proper nourishment which again affected by seasonal vagaries which are not under the control of any human agency, for example, if there was no proper moisture in the land, there will not be proper germination. Lesser moisture or excess moisture affects the germination. Similarly, excessing use of fertilizer, also affects then, the climates such as, pouring of rain at proper time or improper time.  Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that without getting the seeds in question tested from appropriate laboratory, except physical inspection of the site, it cannot be said that the seeds in question were of inferior/sub standard quality. Thus, the version of complainant alleging that the seed sold by OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, were of inferior quality is not believable. As such, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same. Parties are left to bear their own costs.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced:- 15.07.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President