Haryana

Karnal

CC/836/2019

Dimple Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Naresh Kumar

26 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 836 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.19.12.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:26.10.2022

 

Dimple Kumar son of Shri Ramesh Kumar, resident of near Lal Mandir, Ward no.5, Nigdhu, Sub Tehsil Nigdhu, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Umri, District Karnal through its authorized person.

 

2.     Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Regid. & H.O. Bays no.3-6, Sector 2, Pachkula-134112 through its authorised person.

 

3.     Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Department, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Naresh Kumar, counsel for complainant.

Shri Atul Mittal, counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2.

                   OP no.3 exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:  

 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is having agriculture land in village Nigdhu and complainant is agriculturist by profession. OP no.1 is a State Government Undertaking and deals in selling seeds etc. Complainant purchased seed of paddy from OP no.1, vide invoice no.33224 dated 16.05.2019 i.e. paddy PR=121 (4x10kg) @ Rs.30/- per kg=Rs.1200/- and also purchased CSF for an amount of Rs.3340/- and complainant paid the amount of Rs.4540/- to the OP no.1. After purchasing the seed, complainant had sown the same and peneery/small plants of crop grown up and thereafter the said plants were transplanted in 8 acres of land. Lateron, complainant came to know that the seed was of inferior quality and is of off type and that there is mixing in the seeds and about 40% seeds of other type were standing in the fields of the complainant and ultimately the complainant approached to the OPs and informed about the said facts and the OPs also visited at the spot and realize that the seed is of inferior quality which was sold by the OP no.1. Complaint was also made to Agriculture Department and the official of the Agriculture Department visited the spot and found that there was 10% off type/other varieties plants which were tall than other seeds and were having no rice in it and a Technical Committee was submitted the report that complainant suffered loss of 10% whereas the actual loss was at higher side i.e. after 40%. The OP no.1 sold the inferior quality seeds to the complainant. Due to mixing in the seeds and/or off type/other variety, complainant suffered a huge loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss of crop, to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-on account of mental pain and agony and to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; 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 agricultural practices have to be followed. Seed by itself without the other inputs and ambient condition or requirements cannot give a good crop. The complaint does not show and proves that all other requirements were properly met. However, when a complaint was received then Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited organized a committee and went to the spot and found that about 1% to 2% of type plants were in the field and there may be various reasons behind this. It is further pleaded that OPs always sell the seed which were duly certified by State Seed Certification Agency, which is a State Government Agency or which are permitted as per law. The very objective of the Government Organization is to market seed strictly conforming to the prescribed standards. The seeds are sold subject to quality analysis and only after testing from the notified (under the provisions of Seed Act and Seed Rules) State Government Seed Testing Laboratory. The entire operation is supervised by technically qualified and trained officer’s 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 that the seeds in question were not a pure and healthy seed. In this case the paddy is certified seed weighing 102.60 quintals, including that of lot of no. Oct. 18.07.2014 under reference, was produced by Haryana Seeds Development i.e. State Government Undertaking Corporation of Haryana and which was duly tested by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency, vide its report no.P-34088 dated 08.02.2019 and it was sold to may farmers including the complainant and no other complaint was received from any farmer of said seed. Moreover, as per the register which was maintained by the society and as per said register that only 4 bags of 10 kgs each were sold to complainant, which is sufficient for only four acres as per the recommendations of Haryana Agriculture University Hisar. It is further pleaded that the documents produced by the complainant does not establish that the alleged seed purchased from the OPs 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 OPs. It is admitted that the complainant had made a complaint to the OPs and after that the OPs had got inspected the fields of the complainant on constituting an appropriate committee and that committee found the crop in a very good condition. It is further pleaded that no sample of seed for testing has been produced by the complainant as required by section 13 (now 38)(1)(d)  of the Consumer Protection Act. 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 in its reply stated that on 27.08.2019, complainant made a complaint to OP regarding mixing in seed to the extent of 40%. On 10.09.2019, the official of the Agriculture Department visited the spot and found that there was 10% off type/other varieties plants which were tall than other seeds and were having no rice in it rather 90% plants have rice. Thus, it is probability of 10% loss in the paddy yield.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Bimla Rani Ex.CW2/A, copy of letter memo no.5394 dated 26.11.2019 Ex.C1, copy of inspection report dated 10.09.2019 Ex.C2, copy of retail invoice dated 16.05.2019 Ex.C3, copy of form J dated 10.11.2019 Ex.C4, copy of form J dated 09.10.2019 Ex.C5, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C6, affidavits of Sanjeev Kumar, Anil Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Ramesh Lal Ex. C7 to Ex.C10, certified copy of mutation no.11304 Ex.C11, certified copy of Jamabandi for year 2016-2017,  vide khewat no.116, 821, 106, 104, 820 and 103 Ex.C12 to Ex.C17, copy of letter of minimum support prices (M.P.) for kharif 2019-2020 Ex.C18 and closed the evidence on 24.08.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajender Singh Malik, Regional Manager, Ex.OW1/A, copy of Test result of primary/validation/retest samples Ex.O1, copy of certificate of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency Ex.O2, copy of literature regarding crop Ex.O3, copy of inspection of complainant’s field on receipt of complaint Ex.O4, copy of survey report Ex.O5 and closed the evidence on 14.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             It is pertinent to mention here that OP no.3 failed to conclude its evidence after availing several opportunities including three last opportunities. On 09.06.2022 none has put into appearance on behalf of OP and OP was proceeded against exparte, by the order of this Commission.

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, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased the paddy seed and CSF from OP no.1, vide bill dated 16.05.2019 and complainant paid the amount of Rs.4540/- to the OP no.1. After purchasing the seed, complainant had prepared the peneery/small plants and thereafter the said plants were transplanted in 8 acres of land. Lateron, complainant came to know that the seeds were of inferior quality and are of off type and that there is mixing in the seeds and about 40% seeds of other type were standing in the fields of the complainant and ultimately the complainant approached to the OPs and on the complaint of the complainant, the official of the Agriculture Department visited the spot and found that complainant suffered loss of 10% whereas the actual loss was at higher side i.e. after 40%. The OP no.1 sold the inferior quality seeds to the complainant. Due to mixing in the seeds and/or off type/other variety, complainant suffered a huge loss and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for OPs, 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. That since no sample of seed for testing has been produced by the complainant as required by Section 13 (now 38)(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, which is mandatory under the law, so the complainant is liable to be dismissed. He further argued that complaint 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.

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

12.           It is evident from the cash memo Ex.C3 dated 16.05.2019 the complainant purchased 40Kgs seeds of PR-121 from the OP no.1 and paid amounting to Rs.1200/-.

13.           Complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, who constituted the committee on 10.09.2019 and committee prepared its report Ex.C2 and found that there was 10% off type/other varieties plants which were tall than other seeds and were having no rice in it rather 90% plants have rice. Thus, it is probability of 10% loss in the paddy yield.

14.           On the other application of complainant, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation (Umri) constituted a committee and inspected the field of the complainant on 14.09.2019 and found that and prepared report Ex.O5 and found that there is no possibility of mixing of seeds and there is also no possibility of less in the yield of crops of the complainant and there is also no possibility of loss in the yield. The seeds are sold subject to quality analysis and only after testing from the State Government Seed Testing Laboratory and no other complaint was received from any farmer of with regard to mixing in the said seeds and same seeds have good result in other farmer’s field.

15.           The onus to prove his case lies upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has relied upon inspection report Ex.C2, wherein it has been only mentioned that there is possibility of 10% loss in the paddy yield. Rather, OPs have proved its case by placing on record inspection report Ex.O5 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that there is no possibility of mixing of seeds and there is also no possibility of less in the yield of crops of the complainant and there is also no possibility of loss in the yield. HSDC has given the certified seeds which are completely as per norms of certification. Furthermore, the seed has been certified by an independent government institute i.e. HSSCA/government lab. Therefore, there is no possibility of the mixing in the said seeds.

16.           Thus, in view of the above, there is no loss in the fields of the complainant and complaint deserves to be dismissed and 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: 26.10.2022                                                                    

                                                                      President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

         (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                              Member