Haryana

Karnal

CC/335/2017

Dharam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.K.Malhotra

12 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.335 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 11.10.2017

                                                         Date of decision:12.10.2018

 

Dharam Singh age 50 years son of Shri Singh Ram resident of village Manjura Tehsil and District Karnal                                                                                                             …….Complainant       

                                        Versus

Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, shop no.16, old Anaj Mandi, Navolty Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                       

                                                                        …..Opposite Party

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present  Shri S.K. Malhotra Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Mohit Tayal 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 kgs of paddy seed variety PR-124 from OP, vide bill no.626403 dated 29.04.2017. The complainant sown  the abovesaid seeds in three acre of his land in village of Manjura. The plants grown on the field were not in consonance with the quality of the seed assured to the complainant by the OP. Before harvesting, the complainant moved an application to the office of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal for necessary inspection of the said three acres. The official of the Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal inspected the field on 27.09.2017 and submitted a report dated 4.10.2017 in which it was concluded that there were 80% of PR-124 variety plants whereas remaining 20% plants were of some other variety. Due to supply of inferior, sub standard and mixed quality of seed complainant had suffered loss to the tune of Rs.71,550/- per acre. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct; complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction and concealments of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has not followed the instructions of the OP. Moreover, every crop depends upon many facts, like agro climatic conditions, 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. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and Ex.C1/A and documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 20.04.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O8 and closed the evidence on 06.07.2018.

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.             It is admitted case of the parties that complainant had purchased 20Kgs of paddy seeds variety PR-124 from OP, vide bill no.626403 dated 29.04.2017, the copy of which is Ex.C2.

7.             The counsel for the complainant argued that complainant sown the said seed in 3 acres of land, when the crop grow up he found that there was mixing in the seed quality. Complainant got inspected his crop from the team of experts constituted by Deputy Director Agriculture Department, Karnal. As per the report Ex.C5 of team of the experts “there were 80% of PR-124 variety plants which were in ripening stage and 20% off type/other varieties plants, which were in flowering stage. Due to uneven ripening there may be loss in the paddy yield.” He further argued that complainant had suffered a net loss at the tune of Rs.71,550/-.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP argued 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 requirements cannot give a good crop. He further argued that the certificate Ex.O1 reveals that there is no any complaint from the other farmers regarding poor germination, admixture or low production etc. except one i.e. complainant. As per document Ex.O2 the seed were sold at various stations and no complaint was received from anyone regarding the mixing of the seed. The complainant purchased 20 Kgs of paddy seeds which is sufficient for 2 acres of land as per the rules of Haryana Seed Development co-op. The seeds are sold subject to the quality analysis and only after testing from the notified (under the provisions of Seed Act and Seed Rules) State Government Seed Testing Laboratory.

9.             As perusal of the records, it is clear that the seed supplied by the was neither substandard nor mixed. To rebut the evidence produced by the OP, complainant has not produced any cogent evidence/document to prove that the seed supplied by the OP was substandard or mixed. The complainant had sown the said seed in 3 acres of land which is only for 2 acres of land according to Ex.O3. There is possibility that mixing shown in Ex.C5 may have been occurred on the hands of the complainant as he sown the 20Kgs seed in 3 acres of land which is only for 2 acres of land. As per complainant he sold his paddy vide Form-J, copy of which is Ex.C3 in the market and same came out to be 51 quintals. It is also possible that complainant has not sold the whole produced paddy in the market and may have kept some portion in his house for personal use. Hence there is no force in the complaint.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to above discussions, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:12.10.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                               

                (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                             Member