Haryana

Karnal

633/2011

Rohtash Singh S/o Shri Partap Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Seeds Development Corp. Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A.S. Chauhan

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                               Complaint No.633 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt.: 7.10.2011

                                                                Date of decision:6 .04.2016

 

Rohtash Singh son of Shri Partap Singh resident of village Agondh district Karnal.

.                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Karnal near Bus stand, Karnal.

                                                                   ………… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before            Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                     Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.A.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.Narender Sharma Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased 120 Kgs. of paddy seed variety  PR-114, lot No.October-10-07-02-11 for Rs.2520/-  from the Opposite Party, vide bill No.1272  dated 13.5.2011. The aforesaid paddy seed was transplanted in 26 acres of land, but there was uneven ripening of the crop.  On  26.09.2011, he moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal for inspection of his fields. A technical committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal  visited his fields and observed that  due to uneven  ripening there might be 82% loss in the paddy yield.  Thus, he suffered great loss due to  supply of inferior quality paddy seed and mixing other variety by the Opposite Party.  He complained to the Opposite Party regarding supply of low standard and duplicate seed, but the Opposite Party did not listen. In this way, he suffered loss of Rs.18,00,000/- and mental pain on account of supply of inferior quality and mixed variety seed by the Opposite Party.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

                   On merits, it  has been submitted that lot out of which the complainant purchased the seed was of 186 and that seed was sold to number of farmers in different districts, but there was no complaint from any other farmer. On the complaint of the complainant, his fields were inspected by the team of Agriculture Department and Haryana Seeds Development Corporation and during inspection condition of the crop was found to be normal. Despite 82% off variety, the complainant had not suffered any loss. It has further been pleaded that the complainant did not follow prescribed norms while sowing the seed. As per instructions/prescribed norms, while sowing the seed, the farmers were required to sow 8-10 kgs. of seed per acre, whereas the complainant used 120 Kgms  seed for 26 acres. Moreover, the production/ yield also depends upon various factors viz weather, quality of water and other necessary requirements to be followed by the farmers. As the condition of the crop of the complainant was normal, the complainant had not suffered any loss. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1, affidavit of Jaildar son of Dalip Ex.CW2, affidavit of Surender Singh Ex.C3 and documents Ex.C1, Ex.C2 and Ex.C4 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party, affidavit of Shri Ram Kumar lamba Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP1/A to Ex.OP1/E have been tendered.

 5.                     For seeking clarification regarding variations  in the  report prepared by  joint inspection team of Agriculture Department and Opposite Party and the report prepared by inspection team of the Opposite Party, Sh.S.P.Kapil,  Quality Control Manager, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Panchkula, was also examined.

 

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 complainant had purchased 120Kgs. of paddy seed variety PR-114 from the Opposite Party, vide bill No.1272 dated 13.5.2011 and from the said seed paddy was transplanted in 26 acres of land, but the paddy was not  growing properly. On  the request of  complainant, a team of officers constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal visited his fields and found 82% of other variety in the field. The report of the team is Ex.C1 . The Opposite Party has submitted that fields of the complainant were inspected by the team  of Agriculture department and Haryana Seeds Development Corporation  and condition of the crop was found to be normal.

 

7.                The complainant has produced copy of the report Ex.C1 prepared by Joint Inspection Committee of the Agriculture department and Haryana Seeds Development Corporation after inspecting  his fields on 22.9.2011.The team/committee observed that there might be 82% plants of the other variety that might be of HKR 127. However, the condition of the crop was reported normal. The Opposite Party has produced the copy of inspection report Ex.OP1/E prepared by the team of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation on visiting the fields of the complainant on 6.9.2011.  According to the said report there were 15 to 20 % plants of HKR 127 variety in the crop of the complainant but the condition of the crop was good and the complainant was not going to suffer any financial loss. As some officers of the Haryana Seed Development Corporation signed report Ex.OP1/E,  as well as the report Ex.C1, Mr.S.P.Kapil, Manager, Quality Control Laboratory, Panchkula was  summoned to clarify the matter and  his statement was recorded. He was member of  both the teams.  One team visited the fields of the complainant on 6.9.2011 and the other visited the fields on 22.9.2011.  He gave explanation for variations  in the  report regarding off variety i.e. HKR 127 that on 6.9.2011, when crop was visited there was no flowering, but on 22.9.2011 there was complete flowering of the crop and that was why the observation of the committee was changed regarding percentage  of the  off variety. He also tried to clarify that  before flowering it is not possible to say exactly as to what is the  percentage of off  variety in the crop.

 

 8.                            Thus, from the aforesaid reports and statement of Sh.S.P.Kapil, Manager, Quality Control Laboratory, Panchkula,  at least one thing is clearly established that there were plants of off variety HKR 127 in the field of the complainant, whereas he had purchased PR-114 paddy seed from the Opposite Party and had planted the same in 26 acres of land. However, the statement of Sh.S.P.Kapil, regarding so much variation of off variety  percentage  in the crop just after 15 days of the first  visit, does not inspire any confidence. He was member of both the teams, which inspected the fields of the complainant and could very well explain the differences in the observation, in the report Ex.C1. However, such higher difference was not explained.  When the expert committee  visited the fields on 6.9.2011, and gave percentage of off variety from 15 to 20 per cent without flowering of the crop it could very well give exact percentage  even at that time.

 

9.                It is pertinent to note that in the report Ex.OP1/E it was specifically mentioned that condition of the crop in the fields of the complainant was very good and there was no financial loss. The said report was signed by the complainant also, therefore, he cannot raise any dispute regarding the same. In the report Ex.C1 also the expert joint committee mentioned that condition of the crop was normal.  Therefore, from both the reports this fact stands  established that  condition of the crop of the complainant was normal and he was not going to suffer any financial loss. There is no evidence worth the name on record which may show that there were different timings for maturity of PR-14 seed purchased by the complainant and off variety  plants of HKR 127 found by the inspecting team. The complainant has neither alleged nor led any evidence to show that there was any difference in the rate of sale of both the varieties. Under such circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that he suffered any financial loss on account of supplying mixed variety seed by the Opposite Party. However, from the evidence on record, it is proved that in the paddy crop of the complainant off variety plants of HKR 127 were found. The expert committees  which inspected the fields of the complainant did not give any observation  that off variety plants in the fields of the complainant  were due to any negligence  or fault on his part. Even the Opposite Party has neither alleged nor led any evidence to prove any negligence on the part of the complainant in preparing the nursery from  the seed purchased by him and transplanting the same in the fields. Under such  facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the seed supplied by the Opposite Party of PR-114 variety was not pure, rather the same contained off variety seed also. The complainant who wanted to  get crop of PR-114 variety was bound to suffer mental pain and harassment on account of off variety seed found in the seed supplied to him by the Opposite Party. Consequently, he is entitled to get compensation from the Opposite Party.

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party to pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Party shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 6.04.2016.

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.A.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.Narender Sharma Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

                     Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 6.4.2016.

Announced
dated: 5.04.2016.

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.A.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.Narender Sharma Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

                     Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 6.04.2016.

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.