Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/414/2018

Kulwant Singh S/o Ronak Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Hari Kishan

11 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

 

                                                                   Complaint No.:      414 of 2018.

                                                                   Date of institution:   27.11.2018.

                                                                   Date of decision:     11.08.2023.

 

Kulwant Singh S/o Sh. Ronak Singh, R/o Village Basantpura, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                   …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Office at Radaur, Tehsil Radaur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through its Manager.
2. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., Bays No.3-6, Sector 2, Panchkula through its M.D.

                                                                                                  … Respondent

 

CORAM:    GULAB SINGH, PRESIDENT.       

                    JASVINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

                    SARVJEET KAUR, LADY MEMBER.

 

Present:       Shri Hari Kishan, Advocate for the complainant.

                    Shri NS Saini, Adv. for the opponents.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18, written statement, supportive document Ex.R1 to Ex.R9, (it is pertinent to mention, in order to maintain brevity in the order, all the documents relied upon by the parties, may not discussed in verbatim, only the material documents relied upon by the parties, clinching to the issue, shall be discussed hereinafter, in the later part of this order and others may not be discussed), briefly admitted facts of the case are, complainant who was in possession of 63 Canals 7 Marla land, detailed in Para No.1 of the complaint, situated within Revenue Estate of Village Antawa, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, on the basis of lease agreement Ex.C2. He purchased 30 KG rice seeds on 20.04.2018 (for short seeds), from the opponent No.1 as it was also developed by the opponent No.2, vide invoice Ex.C4 and he paid Rs.1710/-. The seed was developed by the opponent No.2 and certified by Seed Testing Laboratory, Umri, District Kurukshetra and another report of Seed Testing Laboratory, Karnal Uchani, fact is reflected from report Ex.R6.

3.             By way of complaint in hand, the complainant alleged, he had taken lease land on the basis of lease Ex.C2 in the sum of Rs.3,80,000/- which he paid to the owner of the land i.e. @ Rs.48,000/- per acre. He, after purchasing the three bags of paddy seeds, total 30 KG from the opponent No.1, vide invoice Ex.C4, sowed the same for plantation of paddy and he made his land ready as per all norms. However, his paddy crop had not grown upto the mark as the seeds sold by the opponent No.1 was defective and he reported the matter to the Agriculture Department, Haryana and concerned team of Agriculture Department gave its inspection report Ex.C5, observing, after inspection of 8 Acre paddy crop of the complainant, Variety EB No.1, it was found mixture of another seed upto 35-40% and there was possibility of economic loss to the farmer concerned. The complainant in order to redress his grievance served legal notice Ex.C6 upon the opponents and his grievance was not redressed, which according to the complainant was an act of negligence, deficiency in service, causing him economic loss and constraining him to file the complaint.

4.                On receipt of notice of complaint, the opponents in their written statement, have not disputed the sale of paddy seeds to the complainant vide invoice Ex.C4. However, it denied commission of any act of negligence, deficiency in service, on the ground, the seed sold to the complainant was upto the mark and according to India Seed Standard, if less than 0.5% mixture is found then, the seed is supposed to be a good quality and in this regard, Indian Memo Seed Certification Standard certificate Ex.R2, Ex.R3 was issued. There was no another complaint and in order to redress the grievance of the farmers, the opponents had constituted a Committee and the Committee inspected the land of the other farmers who had sown the same variety of the seed, but no fault was found with the seeds of same quality, as reflected in report Ex.R7. The seed was developed by the opponent No.2 was fully tested by two laboratories, one is at Uchani, District Karnal and another at Village Umri, District Kurukshetra and in case there was any complaint regarding the quality of the seeds, then the Agriculture Department prior to the inspection was required to notify the proposed inspection to the presence of representative of the seed Developer as per the directions Ex.R5 issued by the Director of Agriculture Haryana, Panchkula. The complaint is devoid on merits and is liable to be dismissed.

5.              Shri Hari Kishan, Ld. counsel for the complainant, in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and apprised the Commission about the evidence adduced on record by the complainant, as well as by the opponents and while concluding his arguments, in order to support his contentions, he kept reliance on case laws titled Virender Jain Vs. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors., 2013(3) Civil Court Cases 177 (SC); Laxmi Agriculture Seed Store Vs. Dhoop Singh & Ors, I (1995) CPJ 45 (NC); National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Abdul Aziz Fakir Mohd. Inamdar & Anr., 2009 (2) CLT __ (NC); Area Manager, National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. A.Karuppanan Servai & Ors., I (1996) CPJ 110 (NC).

6.            Sh. NS Saini, Ld. Counsel for the opponents, in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the written statement and also apprised the Commission about pleading, evidence of the complainant, pleading of the opponents and then evidence of the opponents and submitted, there was no fault with the seeds sold to the complainant and complainant is not entitled to the relied as prayed. 

7.                The moot question before this Commission, is whether, the seed, subject matter of invoice Ex.C4 developed by the opponent No.2 and sold to the complainant by the opponent No.1 was of not good quality, if it was so, then as to whether, the complainant is entitled to the relief, as prayed or to what extent and against whom?

8.                The complainant purchased the seeds of 30 KG from the opponent No.1 vide retail invoice Ex.C4 on 20.04.2018, Paddy-PB-No.1, L.No. Oct. 16.07.02-19. He sowed in the land taken by him on the lease. When he planted the paddy, he found, the paddy crop was not upto the mark and reported the matter to the Agriculture Department Haryana and its team inspected the land possessed by the complainant on 11.09.2018, fact is reflected from inspection report Ex.C5, according to which, in the paddy crop to the complainant, there was mixture of about 35-40% and there was possibility of economic loss to the farmer concerned (complainant). According to the opponents, the seed was fully certified by two laboratory, according to the certificate norms and the report Ex.C5 is meaningless, because, the inspection team from the agriculture Department violated the instruction of Government Ex.R5 and had not joined any representative of the opponents at the time of inspection of the land of the complainant. However, this Commission do not agree to the contentions of the opponents, if before inspection of the land of the complainant, the inspection team had not notified the opponents regarding the proposed visit and inspection of the land of the complainant, then it was the fault on the part of the inspection team not of the complainant and due to fault of inspection team, who prepared report Ex.C5, the complainant is not supposed to suffer.

9.                The opponents relied upon the report Ex.R7 and admitted, complainant had also complaint regarding mixing of seed and this report makes clear, they inspected the land of other person such as Jagir Singh. Mohan Singh, Neeraj Kamboj, Rishi Pal, who had sown the seed of same variety, but despite receipt of complaint from the complainant, they had not inspected the land of the complainant. There is no explanation, why they had not inspected the land possessed by the complainant despite receipt of complaint, the fact in itself proves the opponents were negligent and deficient in service and they had not inspected the land possessed by the complainant, rather recording of statement of others farmers such as Jagir Singh. Mohan Singh, Neeraj Kamboj, Rishi Pal by the opponents ignoring the complainant itself shows, there was something wrong and it was not necessary that the variety of the seed purchased by other farmers may be same, but its quality may differ person to person and moreover the statement recorded by the opponents of other farmers in the absence of the complainant, is not binding on the complainant in any manner, rather it further cements the version of the complainant and the preponderance of probability of evidence is in favour of the complainant and it is established on the record, the opponents were negligent and deficient in service.

10.              Coming on the quantum of compensation/liability on the part of the opponents, as per the report of Agriculture Department Ex.C5 relied upon by the complainant, there was mixture of 35-40% of seed of other variety and the inspection team expressed its opinion, saying there was possibility of economic loss to the complainant. It is noticeable fact, as and when any crop after its harvest such as wheat, rice is brought into the market for sale and mixture of the seed is found, quite obvious, the concerned farmer will not get its maximum price, rather he/she is bound to sell the same on lower price. Assuming the report Ex.C5 as true, it is crystal clear, the mixture of seed after 35-40% was not going to result into less yield, neither, it is the case of the complainant. Moreover, definitely, he sold his crop in the market, because no person will keep the rice grown in 8 Acre of land for self consumption. Complainant has not produced on record any receipt from the commission agent, showing what was the market price of the rice at relevant time of particular variety, subject matter of the invoice Ex.C4. Similarly, he has not produced any receipt on the record telling, how much yield of rice was there from the alleged impugned seed and how much, he suffered the loss. Under the circumstances, in order to maintain the balance, the complainant is entitled to nominal compensation only against the opponent No.2 being the developer of the seed and this Commission is of the firm view, in case, considering the totality of the circumstances, such as payment of lease money by the complainant to the owner of the land, tillering, fertilizer, water, if nominal compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- only (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is awarded against the opponent No.2, to compensate the complainant in all heads such as mental agony, harassment, economic loss, litigation cost, it will suffice the purpose and ends of justice will meet. 

11.              Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, the complaint of the complainant is, partly, accepted, against the opponent No.2, holding it liable to make punitive damages in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), in favour of the complainant, to compensate him in all heads, within the period of one (1) month from the date of order, in default of it, opponent No.2 shall be liable to pay simple interest @8% per annum on the award amount from the date of order till actual payment. It is further made clear, in case, to enforce this order, complainant is constrained to file an execution petition before this Commission against the opponent No.2, then, the opponent No.2 may be liable to burden the cost of the same, which shall be assessed by this Commission at an appropriate stage. The complaint against the opponent No.1 is dismissed being the seller of the seed.  

12.              Before parting with this order, it is pertinent to mention that the complaint has not been decided within the prescribed period of limitation of time. The history of the proceedings shows, at initial stage, the complainant delayed the proceeding while not concluding evidence and then similar was the position of the opponents. Thereafter, COVID-19 came into the way of this Commission  and after the dip into COVID-19, due of have pendency, long dates of hearing had been given to the parties and counsel for the parties sought many adjournment on one or another pretext, and on two occasion, quorum of the Commission was not complete.  In this way, whatever the delay has been caused in the disposal of the complaint, same was beyond the control of this Commission.

13.              File be consigned to the records.

Dated: 11.08.2023.     

                                                                           (Gulab Singh)

                                                                          District & Sessions Judge (VRS)

(Sarvjeet Kaur)               (Jasvinder Singh)         President,

(Lady Member)               (Member).                    DCDRC, YNR.               
 

 

Typed by:  Jitender Sharma, Steno-typist.