Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1010/2011

Sawan Ram s/o sh.Rakha Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryali - Opp.Party(s)

VK Rajouria

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

Complaint No. 1010 of 2011

Date of institution: 26.09.2011

Date of decision: 15.12.2016

 

Sawan Ram son of Sh. Rakha Ram, resident of village Kathgarh, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Hariyali Sadhaura Road, Bilaspur, HB No.279, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar through its Partner/Prop.
2. M/s Shriram Fertilizers and Chemicals, Divisional Marketing Office, SCF-88, Sector-6, Urban Estate, Karnal through its GM/Prop.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Shri VK Rajoria, Advocate for complainant

                         Shri Hitesh Ghambir, Advocate for OP No.1

                         Shri David Singh, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

ORDER

 

1                       The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

 2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased two packets of paddy 432, having each packet having 3Kg of paddy seed from the OP No.1 and paid Rs.650/- per packet vide bill No.4F1C000149 dated 26^th May, 2011 i.e. total Rs.1300/- after purchasing seeds, the complainant immediately sowed the said seeds in his agricultural land. The complainant also used good pesticides and Khad for growing the paddy crop in a proper manner but to the utter dismay of the complainant these seeds did not give good result. The growth of the seed was very less. It seems that only 10 quintals per acre paddy shall grow and loss of 40 quintals per acre. Upon this, the complainant immediately contacted the OP No.1 and lodged his complaint. The official of the OP No.1 went to the spot and found that whatever the complainant was saying that was correct, but the OP No.1 has refused to compensate the complainant. Hence, this complaint praying therein that the OPs be directed to compensate the complainant equal to the tune of 80 quintals of paddy in two acres and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OP  No.1 appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has not complied with the provisions of under Section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act; this Forum has no jurisdiction  to entertain and to decide the present complaint; complainant discloses complicated facts and law which cannot be decide in summary manner in the Consumer Forum; neither there is any report of agricultural expert nor the complainant has taken any steps to get the quality of seed tested so the instant complaint is liable to dismissed; complaint is not maintainable and is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties; germination of the seeds depends on multiple factors such as nature of soil, irrigation, climate, weather changes, quality of seeds, use of insecticides and pesticides, the complainant has nowhere mentioned in the complaint about the cultivation practices adopted for the better growth of the crop. Simply, because he did not receive the yield as per expectation, it cannot be said that the seed sown was not of good quality; the variety in question i.e. seeds 432 of paddy was purchased by the OP No.1 from the OP No.2 who is marketer and producer of the seed in question and the OP No.1 sold the sealed bags to the complainant and various other farmers; the complainant has not filed any evidence to prove that alleged adulterated seed was supplied to him; complainant is merely relying on the alleged inspection report attached with the complaint which does not inspire confidence as it does not even whisper anything about any defect in the seed. The report only states that there was 10 to 12 percent mixing of other seeds. However, the report does not disclose as to on what basis the Block Agriculture Officer has come to the conclusion that there is no mixing of 10 to 12 percent; the complainant has also failed to prove the actual loss he has suffered and on merit it has been denied that OP No.1 represented to the complainant that paddy seeds in question are best quality and after showing the seed paddy crop can be cultivated to the tune of about 50 quintal per acre. Rest of contents of the complaint were controverted whereas the stand taken in the preliminary objections were reiterated. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1 and lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.1.

4.                     OP No.2 also appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant is bad mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of Seeds Act, 1966 as there is no report of seed analyst as prescribed under section 16 nor any legal sample of the seeds has been taken as per the provisions of Section 14, 15 & 16 of the said Act; the complaint is without cause of action; complaint is barred by provisions of limitation Act. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of no report of seeds being misbranded etc. has been supplied to the OPs and therefore, there is a statutory defect of the right of the OPs to apply for retesting. The complainant has never mentioned the batch number and year of manufacture of the seeds in question. Moreover, the seeds have never been sold by the OP No.2 nor the complainant has been able to put forward any effective proof of the same. It has been further mentioned that the germination of the seeds is dependent on number of factors including the quality of the land, supply of water duration of germination, prevention from types of disease by usage of pesticides etc. There is no report of the Agricultural Officer regarding any deficiency in the type of seeds supplied by OP No.2 and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     In support his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of invoice as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of application for appointment of local commission alongwith report as Annexure C-1 and closed his evidence.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajeev Kumar Gupta Deputy Manager Hariyali Kisan Bazaar as Annexure RW1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     Counsel for the Op No.2 tendered into evidence photo copy of statements (release order) as Annexure RW2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.

9.                     It is not disputed that complainant had purchased 2 bags of 3 Kgs. each paddy seed from the OP No.1 vide Bill No. 4f1SEED000149 dated 26.05.2011 and paid Rs. 1300/-. The contention of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality and that was having mixture of seed of different variety and to prove his contention he moved an application for appointment of Local Commissioner and our Predecessor vide order dated 26.09.2011 directed the Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar to depute any Agriculture Development Officer, Yamuna Nagar to inspect the field of complainant. Thus, the Block Agriculture Officer, Bilaspur made the report Annexure C-2 mentioning therein that 10-12% of other varieties were found mixed in the paddy crop.

10.                   The only version of the complainant is that the OPs supplied the mixture seed of paddy of different variety and due to that the production as well as the rate of the produce was effected and in this way complainant has suffered huge financial loss which constitute the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and draw our attention towards the report of local commissioner, appointed by this Forum vide its order dated 26.09.2011, Annexure C-2 and also referred the purchased bill dated 26.05.2011 as Annexure C-1.

11.                    Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Annexure C-2 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Annexure C-2) it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by only Agriculture Development Officer, Bilaspur. Even, before inspection of the field of the complainant, no notice has been issued to the representative of the Ops neither any respectable person from the locality i.e. Lumberdar, Panch, Sarpanch and neighbourer of the field has been joined before inspecting the field of the complainant. Furthermore, the report in question is also silent in respect of criteria adopted by the said Block Agriculture Officer, Bilaspur. Except the report of said Agriculture Officer Bilaspur (Annexure C-2), no cogent evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove his case. Mere filing of the copy of bill it cannot be held that complainant might have suffered any financial loss. The said Block Agriculture Officer has mentioned in his report that there was 10-12% different variety of the seed but he has not disclosed the name of that varieties. It means, he does not know about the quality of the paddy seed in question and in the absence of particular variety of the seeds, it cannot be said that there was any mixing in the seed in question and further without getting it tested from the appropriate laboratory it cannot be said that the seed in question was of sub-standard quality. However, the said Block Agriculture Officer has not mentioned in his report that the farmer/complainant has suffered any financial loss. No sample was drawn from the field of the complainant and was sent to the laboratory for testing the same whereas it is mandatory under section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced here as under:

Where the complainant alleged defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or the test of goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, still it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and referred the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory alongwith a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, which ever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its finding thereof to the District Forum within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.

12.                   Further, the said Block Agriculture Officer, Bilaspur has also not followed the instructions issued by the Director issued by Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department Panchkula, vide memo No. 52-70 dated 3.1.2002 TA/SS in which it has been mentioned that when there is a complaint by a farmer regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kendre. In the present case, the said instructions has not been followed by the said Block Agriculture Officer while giving the present report (Annexure C-2). Factum of the complainant that he has suffered loss due to sub standard quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or any other evidence. Hence, the report of the Local Commissioner (Annexure C-2) is not reflecting the true facts and have no weightage in the eye of law.  The same view has been held in case titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, IV (2013) CPJ page 186 National Commission, it has been held that Agriculture-Defective Seed-Growth of crop not satisfactory-Loss suffered-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed the complaint- State Commission accepted appeal and dismissed the complaint- Hence revision- When there is complaint by the farmers regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kender- Said inspection had not been followed by the Agriculture Department while giving their report- Factum of the complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or other evidence- No illegality or irregularity in impugned order. Revision dismissed.

13.                   Further reliance on this point can be taken from the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies 2007 (2) CLT page 683 and Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others 2013 Volume 2 page 616 National Commission wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that petitioner had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under provision of section 13(1)( C ) of the Consumer Protection Act  1986- He had 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.

14.                   Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs, therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 15.12.2016.                      

                                                                              ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                                                               D.C.D.R.F. YAMUNA NAGAR

 

 

 

                                                                              (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                               MEMBER