Haryana

Karnal

CC/360/2018

Joginder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Seed Development Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Beer Singh Panwar

10 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.360 of 2018

                                                        Date of instt. 19.12.2018

                                                        Date of decision 10.02.2021

 

Joginder Singh son of Shri Ajit Singh, resident of village Khijrabad, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. (Aged about 53 years) Aadhar card no.8786 4804 6025), mobile no.92530-71350.

 

…….Complainant       

                                        Versus

 

1. Haryana Seed Development Corporation Ltd. Assandh, District Karnal through its Manager.

2.  Royal Crop Sciences (India), 98-A, I.T. Scheme no.24, NSM, Sanoli Road, Panipat (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

3. See ciba Crop Sciences, plot no.HD-15, Sikandrabad Industrial Area, Sikandrabad-203206 through its Managing Director.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

       Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.              

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: Shri Beer Singh Advocate for complainants.

Shri Atul Mittal Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 3.

Opposite party no.2 exparte.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and he purchased the insecticide from OP no.1 on 04.09.2018, vide bill no.79 book no.684 to spray paddy fields. The abovesaid manufactured by OPs no.2 and 3. Complainant sprayed the abovesaid insecticides in his three acres of land as per the directions written on the insecticide boxes and due to spray, the paddy crop was totally damaged and in this regard, the complainant moved a complaint before the office of Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Karnal and on this complaint, the Technical Committee was constituted by the said office and the said committee made the following observations in the presence of the complainant:

1. The abovesaid committee visited and thoroughly examined the complainant paddy field on 28.09.2018. The complainant told that he had purchased chemicals from M/s Haryana seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Assandh.

2. Complainant told that he had transplanted 3 acres of paddy crop.

3. Committee observed the crop of paddy was affected with spray of chemicals.

4. Committee concluded that there was 80-90% (approx.) loss in paddy fields due to chemical’s spray.

Due to the said reason, complainant suffered a loss of more than Rs.2 lacs. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP no.1 so many times and asked to compensate him regarding the paddy loss suffered by him but OP no.1 refused to pay the same. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint ; jurisdiction; hopeless time barred and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that 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. Seed by itself without the other inputs and ambient condition or requirements cannot give a good crop. The complainant does not show and prove that all other requirements were properly met. However, no complaint was received from farmers to OPs. It is further pleaded that the documents produced by the complainant do not establish that the alleged Insecticide purchased from HSDC was actually sprayed in his fields. It might be the insecticide purchased by the complainant from some other sources also, and sprayed in the fields. No conclusive proof has been produced by the complainants for attribute the OPs. That since no sample of Insecticide 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 so the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is denied that complainant had reported the matter to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal by way of moving an application. It is also denied that the official of the Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant with OP or the complainant might have shown some other fields where the paddy seeds were not germinated to the officials of the Agriculture Department. Even otherwise, the said Team has no authority to make such inspection under the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, it is matter of record whether the complainant had filed any application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal. Filing an application or making complaints to third party has no meaning. It was responsibility of the complainant to inform the OP first and to make a complaint to OP. Moreover, inspection of field conducted by the officers of the Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal office is not valid because it is against the directions of Director Agriculture Haryana. As per directions it was decided that fields of farmers would be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed/insecticide agency and scientist of K.V.K/HAU. It is also denied for want of knowledge that any team was deputed for inspection of the complainant fields. In case the officials of Agriculture Department have inspected the fields of the complainant possibilities are there that the complainant might have shown some other fields which were having admixture crop, to the officials of the Agriculture Department. Even otherwise, the said team has no authority to make such inspection in the absence of OP. The alleged inspection report has no relevancy. Hence 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.2 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order of this Commission dated 11.10.2019.

4.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version and followed the same lines of OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 04.09.2018 Ex.C1, copy of report of DDA dated 28.09.2018 Ex.C2, copy of Truune manufacture of Royal crop science Ex.C3, copy of double bull manufactured by See ciba crop science Ex.C4 and copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 12.12.2019 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mohinder Singh Malik Ex.O1/A, notification of Deputy Director Agriculture Ex.OP1, notification of Director of Agriculture Haryana Ex.OP2 and OP3, certificate of sale Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP7, sale stock certificate Ex.OP8, bill Ex.OP9, sale certificate Ex.OP10 and sale detail Ex.O11 and closed the evidence on 13.03.2020 by suffering separate statement.

7.             OP no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Vijay Manager Ex.O3/A, authority letter Ex.OP12, farmer satisfaction report Ex.OP13, analysis report Ex.OP14, sale certificate Ex.OP15 and Ex.OP16 and document Ex.O17 and closed the evidence by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel of complainant argued that complainant purchased the insecticide to spray paddy fields from OP no.1 on 04.09.2018, vide bill no.79 book no.684. Complainant sprayed the abovesaid insecticides in his three acres of land as per the directions written on the insecticide boxes and due to spray, the paddy crop was totally damaged and in this regard, the complainant moved a complaint before the office of Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Karnal and on this complaint, the Technical Committee was constituted by the said office and the said committee made the observations that there was 80-90% (approx.) loss in paddy fields due to chemical’s spray. Hence complainant prayed for allowing the complaint.

7.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OPs no.1 and 3 argued 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.

8.             It is further argued that documents produced by the complainant do not establish that the alleged Insecticide purchased from HSDC was actually sprayed in his fields. It might be the insecticide purchased by the complainant from some other sources also, and sprayed in the fields. No conclusive proof has been produced by the complainants for attribute the OPs. That since no sample of Insecticide 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 so the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further argued that complainant had reported the matter to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal by way of moving an application. The official of the Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant in the absence of OP. Hence said inspection report has no relevancy and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, the complainant purchased insecticide from OP No.1 on 04.09.2018, vide bill Ex.C1. As per the version of the complainant, he sprayed the above said insecticide in three acres of land on the paddy crop and due to spray the paddy crop was totally damaged and in this regard he approached Deputy Director, Agriculture, Karnal, who inspected the field and come to the conclusion that approximately 80% to 90% loss due to chemical’s spray vide report Ex.C2.

 10.          The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs on the ground that the OPs have sold the same quality insecticide to many farmers in the locality/area but OPs have not received any complaint regarding the poor quality of the said insecticide rather the farmers who had purchased the insecticide from the OPs are very happy with the quality of the said insecticide and are regular customers having no complaint.

 11.          Deputy Director of Agriculture who allegedly inspected the field of the complainant has not issued notice to the OPs which is mandatory requirement as per Government Instructions Ex.OP1. The OPs also relied upon the certificate Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP7 issued by the Regional Manager, HSDC Limited, Panchkula, regarding the good quality of product/insecticide. It is the complainant who has not spray/used the said insecticide by adopting proper method, hence, the paddy crop of the complainant has been damaged.

12.           Except complainant, there is no complaint regarding the poor performance of the insecticide/product. The OPs have sold 234 litres insecticide which proved from certificates OP4, OP5 & OP10 and also sold 2940 quintal which proved from certificates Ex.OP6 and OP7 to the sale counter, HSDC Assandh but no complaint from the farmers resides in the locality of Assandh has been received. If the insecticide purchased by the complainant and other farmers is not of good quality then other farmers must have complaint regarding the quality of the insecticide but it is not so. Furthermore, if any insecticide/pesticide is used more than the required quantity in that case also, there are chances of damaging of crop. Further, the complainant has also failed to prove that he has actually used that insecticide which he has purchased from the OPs.

13.           The onus to prove that the insecticide is of poor quality was upon the complainant by leading cogent evidence but the complainant has failed to prove the same by leading evidence. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant has no force and same is hereby dismissed.

13            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we find no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated the order accordingly, and the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 10.02.2021                                                                    

                                                                      President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

         (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                              Member