Haryana

Karnal

CC/609/2020

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rahul Bali

20 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 609 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.23.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:20.06.2022

 

Sukhwinder Singh son of Shri Jaswant Singh, resident of village Ranwar, Tehsil and District Karnal (age about 48 years). Aadhar card no.2896 3195 0554. Mobile no.99963 44195.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Registered Office: Bays no.3-6, Sector-2, Panchkula-134112 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

2.     Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Shop no.17, Old Grain Market, Karnal through its authorized signatory/owner/partner.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Sh. Rahul Bali, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Atul Mittal, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and having agriculture land in village Ranwar, Tehsil and District Karnal. Complainant had purchased 30 kg. paddy seed i.e. PR-126 for Rs.1203/-, vide bill no.959 dated 07.05.2020 from the OPs. Complainant also purchased another item from the OPs, vide the abovesaid bills to the tune of Rs.802/-, total bill amount comes to Rs.2005/-. It is further averred that complainant had sown the said paddy seeds in six acres of land as per direction and instructions of the OPs and also gave proper water, fertilizer etc. At the time of flowering/fruiting, the complainant was surprised to see the crop of paddy, because although the plants of paddy crop were grown up but paddy was not as per expectations and commitment as the seed was misbranded and mixed one and it was of inferior quality. The variety of the seed is also mixed up. Complainant moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Karnal regarding the mixing of paddy seed supplied/sold to the complainant by the OP no.2, which is manufactured by the OP no.1 and also requested to assess the loss suffered by the complainant. A committee was constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture to inspect the fields of complainant and said team inspected the fields of complainant on 26.09.2020 and found 40-45% mixed seed of other variety than PR-126 and after that said inspecting team prepared his report mentioning therein that there is every possibility of economic loss to the tune of 25 to 30%. The complainant has suffered financial loss to the extent of Rs.18,000/- per acre i.e. total amount to the tune of Rs.1,08,000/- for six acres on account of labour, seed costs, fertilizers, profit etc. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs and requested to pay the compensation on account of loss of crop but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 10.10.2020 to the OPs, but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction; complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided in summary 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 agriculture 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 prove that all other requirements were properly applied. However, no complaint was received from the complainant. It is further pleaded that OPs always sell the seed which are duly certified by “State seed Certification Agency” which is a State Government Agency or which are permitted as per law. The seeds are sold subject to quality analysis and only after testing from the notified State Government Seed Testing Laboratory. The entire operation is supervised by technically qualified and trained officers 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 very simply that the seed in question was not pure and healthy seed. In this case the Seed Certified seed weighing 121.50 quintals, was produced by Haryana Seeds Department Corporation i.e. HSDC and which was duly tested by State seed Certification Agency, vide this report no.P-16704 dated 15.01.2020 and it was sold to many farmers including the complainant. Moreover, as per the register which was maintained by the Corporation and as per said register that only three bags sold to complainant, which is sufficient for three acres as per the recommendations of Haryana Agriculture University. It is further pleaded that the documents produced by the complainant do not establish that the alleged seed purchased form HSDC was actually sown in his fields. It might be that the seed purchased by the complainant from some other source and are sown in the fields, alleged to have admixture or adulterated seed. No conclusive proof has been produced by the complainant to attribute the mixture 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 condition very good. Rather the officers of HSDC have never inspected the fields of the complainant. It is further pleaded that 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.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill/invoice Ex.C1, copy of inspection report Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 08.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Satendra Pal Singh Ex.OW1/A, copy of letter of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Ex.O1, copy of  certificate of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency Ex.O2, copy of literature regarding crop Ex.O3, copy of final statement showing District Wise stocking and Sale Progress Report Ex.O4, copy of Retail Invoice Ex.O5 and closed the evidence on 17.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             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.

7.             Learned counsel of complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased the paddy seed from OP no.1, vide bill no.959 dated 07.05.2020. Complainant sowed the said paddy seeds in his six acres of land as per the directions of the OPs. At the time of flowering/fruiting, the complainant noticed that the plants of paddy crop were not grown up as per the expectation and commitment as the seed was misbranded and mixed one. He approached the OP no.2 and complaint about the same, but OP no.2 did not bother the same and thereafter, complainant filed complaint before Deputy Director Agriculture Officer, Karnal for inspection of the crop.  The authorities concerned constituted a committee and inspection committee visited the site on 26.09.2020 and prepared the inspection report. In the report the inspection committee has mentioned that there is every possibility of economic loss to the tune of 25 to 30%. And complainant prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             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 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.

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

12.           Admittedly, the complainant purchased seed from OP No.1 on 07.05.2020, vide bill Ex.C1.

13.            It is evident from the cash memo Ex.C1 dated 07.05.2020 the complainant purchased 30Kgs seeds of PR-126 from the OP no.1 and paid amounting to Rs.1203/-. Complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee on 26.09.2020 and prepared his report Ex.C2. In the said report, it  was found that 40-45% mixing of seed of other variety  and there is every possibility of economic loss to the tune of 25% to 30%.

14.           The claim of the complainant has been denied by the OPs on the ground that the OPs have sold the same quality of seeds to many farmers in the locality/area and have not received any complaint regarding the poor quality of the said seeds, the farmers who had purchased the seeds from the OPs have not lodged any complaint with the OPs.

15.            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.O1. The OPs also relied upon the certificate Ex.O2 issued by the Chief Seed Certification Officer, regarding the good quality of seeds. It was the complainant who had not sowed the above said seeds by adopting proper method, as per the guidelines issued by Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture, University, Hissar.

16.           The OPs have taken a plea that the agriculture report prepared by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, in the absence of representative of the OPs, is not admissible in the eyes of law.  In this regard, we are also fortified with the observations in case titled as Somnath Kashinath Ghodse Versus Vilas Gangaram Jattap and another MANU/QT/0026/2009; Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babu Ram MANU/CF/0028/2005) wherein it is held that there no representative of seed producing company and representative of dealer. So, the inspection carried out on the field of the complainant was defective one. As per Government Resolution all committee members were not available and manufacturing company and dealer were not representing. Hence, in view of the observation of the abovesaid judgment, agriculture report produced by the complainant Ex.C2 regarding the defective seed which prepared in the absence of the OPs has no weightage

17.           The next plea taken by the OPs is that there is not even a single complaint regarding the alleged dispute i.e. mixing of seed except the present complaint. 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 also failed to examine any other farmer who had also purchased the same variety seeds from the OPs having any complaint with regard to inferior quality of seeds.

18.            The complainant has relied upon the inspection report Ex.C2. On perusal of the same, inspection committee has mentioned that there is probability of the loss to the extent of 25% to 30%. Hence, we are of the considered view that the inspection committee is not sure about the loss in the fields of complainant. Moreover, said report is prepared without following the due process required as per the notification of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula. Moreover, possibility of alleged mixing in the seeds on the hands of labour/complainant cannot be ruled out. Hence, plea taken by the OPs is having force.

19.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merits in the present 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: 20.06.2022                                                                    

                                                                      President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

         (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                              Member