Haryana

Karnal

CC/393/2020

Ramphal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Seed Dev. Corpn. Limited - Opp.Party(s)

14 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 393 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.25.09.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:14.03.2023

 

Ramphal (Age 42 years) son of  Shri Bhim Singh, resident of village Gagsina, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Registered & H.O. Bays no.3-6, Sector-2, Panchkula.

 

2.     Haryana Seeds Develop Corpn. Limited, Branch at Gharaunda, District Karnal.

 

3.     Deputy Director of Agriculture Department, near Old Court Complex, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri Ashwani Popli, counsel for the OPs no.1& 2.

    Shri Surender Kumar Project Officer on behalf of 

    OP no.3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs) on the averments that complainant had purchased 40Kg of paddy seed variety PR-126 of Rs.1603/- from the OPs no.1 and 2, vide bill dated 29.04.2020. After preparing as per the instructions of the OPs, complainant spread the seeds in his fields measuring 17 acres of land in village Gagsina, District Karnal. Complainant irrigated the fields and used fertilizer and pesticide as per the requirement and as directed by the OPs no.1 and 2. The complainant moved an application to OP no.3 regarding investigation of the fields of the complainant. After that a team was constituted by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Karnal accordingly they visited the fields of the complainant and they gave a report dated 01.09.2020. Complainant has suffered a great loss due to supply of low quality seeds by the OPs no.1 and 2 and thus he is entitle to get Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation. Complainant visited the shop of OPs no.1 and 2 and requested to pay the compensation but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction; complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the seed crop like any other crop depends, apart from the seed quality, upon agro climatic conditions, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients, and effective use of fertilizers etc. Besides proper germination of seed correct agriculture practices have to be followed. Seed by itself without the other inputs and ambient condition or requirements cannot give a good crop. The complaint has not shown and proved that all other requirements were properly applied. However, no any complaint was ever made to HSDC. It is further pleaded that OPs always sell the seed which are duly certified by “State seed Certification Agency” which is a State Government Agency or which are permitted as per law. The seeds are sold subject to quality analysis and only after testing from the notified State Government Seed Testing Laboratory. The entire operation is supervised by technically qualified and trained officers right from the fields to the processing and packing center. Apart from the State Government lab testing, the quality is strictly maintained by the Corporation also. Therefore, it cannot be said very simply that the seed in question was not pure and healthy seed. In this case the Seed Certified seed weighing 121.50 quintals, was produced by Haryana Seeds Department Corporation i.e. HSDC and which was duly tested by State seed Certification Agency, vide this report no.P-16704 dated 15.01.2020 and it was sold to many farmers including the complainant. Moreover, as per the register which was maintained by the Corporation and as per said register that only 40 kgs paddy was sold to complainant, which is sufficient for three acres as per the recommendations of Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. It is further pleaded that the documents produced by the complainant do not establish that the alleged seed purchased form HSDC was actually sown in his fields. It might be that the seed purchased by the complainant from some other source and are sown in the fields, alleged to have admixture or adulterated seed. No conclusive proof has been produced by the complainant to attribute the mixture precisely in the seed sold by OPs. It is, however, admitted that the complainant had not made a complaint to the OPs. Since no sample of seed for testing has been produced by the complainant as required by Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1988 which is mandatory under the law. It is denied that complainant approached the OPs  and OPs also visited the spot. The inspection report of SDAO has no relevancy or authority in the eyes of law to hold OP as guilty. Rather, the officers of HSDC have never inspected the fields of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complaint is merely an afterthought just to extort money from the OPs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version stating therein that on 25.08.2020, complainant moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Karnal regarding the mixing of paddy seed supplied/sold to the complainant by the OPs. A committee was constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture to inspect the fields of complainant and said team inspected the fields of complainant on 01.09.2020 and found 40% mixed seed of other variety.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A,  copy of Aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of inspection report Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, copy of bill/tax invoice dated 29.04.2020 Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 14.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Satedra Pal Singh, Regional Manager Ex.OW1/A, copy of phamplet Ex.O1, copy of instructions Ex.O2, copy of bill Ex.O3, copy of certificate of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency Ex.O4, copy of letter of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula Ex.O5, copy of statement showing District wise showing and sale progress report of paddy PR-126 Ex.O6 and closed the evidence on 14.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On 01.07.2022, OP no.3 suffered a statement that reply filed by OP no.3 be also read as its evidence.

7.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that he purchased the 40Kgs paddy seed from OPs no.1 and 2 and sowed the said paddy seeds in his seventeen acres of land. OPs supplied the inferior quality of seeds due to that complainant has suffered a great loss. Complainant made a complaint before Deputy Director Agriculture Officer, Karnal for inspection of the crop. The authorities concerned constituted a committee and inspected committee visited his fields on 01.09.2020 and prepared the inspection report. In the report, the inspection committee has mentioned that they found 40% mixed seed of other variety and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for OPs no.1 and 2, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently that the seed crop, like any other crop depends, apart from the seed quality, upon agro climatic conditions, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients, and effective use of fertilizers etc. Besides proper germination of seed, correct agricultural practices have to be followed. He further argued that documents produced by the complainant do not establish that the alleged seeds purchased from HSDC had actually been sown in his fields. It might be that the seed purchased by the complainant from some other sources also, and sown in the fields. No conclusive proof has been produced by the complainant for attribute the OPs. No sample of seed for testing has been produced by the complainant, which is mandatory under the law, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The official of the Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant in the absence of OP. Hence said inspection report has no evidentiary value and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of both the parties.

11.           It is evident from the cash memo Ex.C4/O3 dated 29.04.2020 the complainant purchased 40Kgs seeds of PR-126 from the OPs and paid Rs.1603/-. Complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee on 01.09.2020 and prepared its report Ex.C3 and found that 40% mixing of seed of other variety  and there is every possibility of economic loss to the farmer due to mixing of seeds.

12.           The claim of the complainant has been denied by the OPs on the ground that the OPs had sold the same quality of seeds to many other farmers and have not received any complaint regarding the poor quality of the said seeds, the farmers who had purchased the seeds from the OPs have not lodged any complaint with the OPs.

13.           As per the version of the complainant, the OPs had supplied the inferior quality of the seed. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Admittedly, complainant had purchased the 40 kgs paddy seed for 17 acres of land. As per the guidelines Ex.O1 issued by Ch. Charan Singh, Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar, 10-12 kg for unscented bonny varieties and 6-7 kg for hybrid paddy healthy seed is required for one acre transplant. Complainant had sown 40kgs seed in 17 acres of land which were not sufficient for the said land.

14.           Moreover, it is the common practice of farmers to prepare the various types of nurseries of different varieties of seeds in the form of dividing the land in small parts like kyaris. Therefore, the possibility of alleged mixing on the hands of complainant and his labourer cannot be ruled out.       

15.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merits in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 14.03.2023

                                                                President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member