Haryana

Karnal

CC/88/2018

Sukhdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Seeds Dev. Corpn. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Darshan Singh

10 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.88 of 2018

                                                         Date of instt. 11.04.2018

                                                         Date of decision:10.12.2018

 

Sukhdev Singh son of Shri Gehna Singh resident of village Dera village Sangoha, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. Haryana Seeds Dev. Corporation Ltd. Regd. & Head office: Bays no.3-6, Sector-2, Panchkula-134112 through its authorized signatory.

2. Haryana Seeds Dev Corporation Ltd. old Anaj Mandi, Karnal through its authorized signatory.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary………Member

 

 Present   Shri Darshan Singh Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Atul Mittal Advocate for opposite party.

               

                (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 purchased 20 kg seed of paddy from the OP no.2 amounting to Rs.800/-, vide book no.1496 dated 17.04.2017 for sowing the same in his 4 acres agricultural land and the said seed of the crop known as 1509 but the OP no.2 issued the bill in the name of OP no.1. After purchasing the seed, complainant sown the same and peneery/small plants of crop grown up and thereafter the said plants were transplanted in 4 acres land. In the second week of August, 2016 complainant came to know that the seed was of inferior quality and is of off type. Complainant approached the OP and OP realized that the seed is of inferior quality which was sold by the OP. Complainant made complaint to the Agricultural Department and the official of the Agricultural Department visited the spot and found that there was 14% off type/other varieties plants which were in reproductive stage and a Technical Committee was submitted the report and in this way, complainant suffered a huge loss of 14% in the paddy yield, however, the loss was in excess then reported by the Technical Committee. The OP sold the wrong seeds to complainant and it is the duty of the OPs to make the compensation to complainant but OPs did not do so. 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, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; jurisdiction; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct and complicated question of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided in summary manner. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant purchased 20 Kg seed of paddy. Rather the complainant has not followed the instructions given to the complainant attached with the seed. Moreover, every crop depends upon many factors, like agro climatic condition, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of appropriate nutrients and effective use of fertilizers etc. apart from the seed quality. Merely preparation of fields, sowing of seed and supply of nutrients do nothing without adopting proper agriculture practices. It is specifically denied that the complainant had reported the matter to the Deputy Director, Agriculture Kanal by way of moving an application. It is denied that the official of the Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant 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. It is further pleaded that complainant made no complaint to the OP regarding the position of the fields. It was the responsibility of the complainant firstly to inform the OP. Moreover, inspection of fields conducted by the officers of 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 complainant farmer would be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KVK/HAU. It is also denied for want of knowledge that any team was deputed for inspection of the complainant’s fields. In case the officials of the agriculture department have inspected the fields of the complainant possibility are there that the complainant might have shown some other fields which were having admixture crop, to the officials of the agriculture department. The alleged inspection report has  no relevancy or authority in the eyes of law to hold to the OP guilty. It is further pleaded that the seed purchased from HSDC was actually sown in his fields. It might be the seed purchased by the complainant from some other sources and sown in the fields, alleged to have admixture or adulterated seed. No conclusive proof has been produced by the complainant to attribute the admixture precisely in the seed sold by HSDC i.e. the OPs. Moreover, no complaint was made by customer/farmer to HSDC at any stage of the standing crop in the fields. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 25.10.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Mohinder Singh Malik Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O9 closed the evidence on 30.11.2018.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that on 17.04.2017 the complainant purchased 20 KG seed of paddy of variety PB-1509 from the OP no.2 at the cost of Rs.800/- in total. The said seed was sown in 4 acres of land by the complainant. In the second week of August 2017, the complainant came to know that seed was of an inferior quality and is off type. The complainant approached the OP and also made complaint in this regard before agriculture department. The agriculture department visited the fields of complainant and reported in a report Ex.C3 that the crop was 14% off type/other varieties plants which were in reproductive stage. Complainant prayed for awarding Rs.1,00,000/- as damage of paddy field.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that seed crop like any other crop depends apart from the seed quality upon agro climatic condition, 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 requirement cannot give a good crop. There is no any complaint from the other farmers regarding mixing or low production etc. except one i.e. complainant. In this case, the paddy variety PB-1509 is a certified seed and only after certification of the seed, total quantity of this seed was sold to many farmers including the complainant. The complainant purchased 20 KGs of paddy seeds which is sufficient for 2.5 acres of land as recommended by the Agriculture University vide Ex.O7. No sample of seed for testing has been produced by the complainant as required u/s 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

8.             On perusal of the records, it is clear that the seed supplied by the OPs was not of inferior quality. Generally, farmer used to sow paddy seed with many varieties in small pieces of land, side by side, in same field for preparation of paddy nursery. Process for sowing seeds includes so many workers and there always remains chances for mixing of seed. To rebut the evidence produced by the OPs, complainant has not produced any cogent evidence/document to prove that the seed supplied by the OPs was mixed one on the hands of the OPs. As per (Ex.O9) OPs has sold the total quantity of seed i.e. 395.20 quintals to various stations, but no other complaint was received regarding mixing in the seed except complainant. The complainant had sown the said seed in 4 acres of land which is only for 2.5 acres of land according to Ex.O7. There is possibility that mixing shown in Ex.C3 may have been occurred on the hands of the complainant, as he had sown the 20 Kgs seed in 4 acres of land which is only for 2.5 acres of land. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we do not find and merits, in the 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:10.12.2018

                                                                        President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr.Rekha Chaudhary)

           Member                  Member