BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  JIND.

                                                                                     Complaint Case No. :    76 of 2020

                                                                 Date of Institution    :    03.02.2020

                                                                 Date of Decision         :   23.11.2022

Maan Singh, aged about 65 years s/o Sh. Pirthi Singh R/o Village Muwana Tehsil Safidon District Jind.

.….Complainant

Versus

1.   Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Hatt Road, Safidon through its Saleman/Manager.

2.   Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Bays No.3-6, Sector 2, Panchkula-134112 through its Managing Director.

3.   State of Haryana through Deputy Director Agriculture, Jind.

                ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.

Present:          Sh. Ramkesh Sharma, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Rampal Singh, Adv. counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.                   

Sh. Sushil Kumar, S.D.A.O. Safidon on behalf of OP No.3.

            ORDER:

Per Sh. G.D. Goyal, Member:-

                        Shorn off unnecessary details, complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he is an agriculturist and on 05.05.2018, he purchased 40 kg paddy Seeds Pusa 1509 bearing Batch/lot No.Oct-17-07-01-83 vide receipt No.1169/114 from OP No.1 who is an authorized sale centre of OP No.2 whereas OP No.2 is manufacturer of seed. Complainant prepared sapling of said seeds and planted in his 8 acres agriculture land but as per inspection by Agriculture Department-OP No.3, the plants were found of two different types i.e. 40% of main crop and 60% of different variety in field. Complainant has alleged that the seeds were of poor quality and defective resulting into less production. As such, complainant has submitted that he has suffered huge loss in crop production because of inferior quality of seeds sold to him by the OPs. Complainant has further submitted that the act & conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant seeking Rs.2.40 lac on account of loss of paddy crop with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agonies as prayed in prayer para of the complaint.

2.                     In pursuance to notices issued by this Commission, all the Ops appeared and tendered their replies separately.

                        OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel before this Commission and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of the complaint, neither cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint is bad for want of provisions U/s 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. On merits, it has been admitted that complainant purchased the alleged seed on 05.05.2018 from OP No.1, however, complainant is owner in possession of agricultural land has been disputed by OPs No.1 & 2 and urged that if the complainant was doing farming, he must have mentioned this fact in his complaint by mentioning Rectangle number & Killa number of his agricultural land in village Muwana wherein he has sown the seed in question and adopted the proper procedure. OPs No.1 & 2 has further denied inferior quality of seeds as alleged by complainant. Answering Ops No.1 & 2 has further urged that the officers of Agriculture Department alone have no authority to inspect the fields of farmers regarding any complaint of poor quality seed as per memo no.52-70/PKL dated 03.01.2002 but in the case of complainant, inspection by Agriculture Department was done at the back of OPs No.1 & 2 and therefore, the inspection report is incomplete & bogus in terms of the aforesaid letter of Director, Agriculture Department Haryana, Panchkula. Answering OP has further contended that as per complainant, he has planted the sapling of said 40 kg seeds in 8 acres whereas according to instructions of Haryana Agriculture University it must have been planted in 5 acres as the agriculture university prescribes 8 kg seed per acre which is complete negligence, carelessness and fault of the complainant. OPs No.1 & 2 has further submitted that OP No.2 of the alleged paddy seeds is producer/manufacturer of the same and the seed in question is duly tested & certified from the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency (A State Government Undertaking). So, the question of defective and inferior quality seed does not arise at all. In this way, OPs No.1 & 2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

                   OP No.3 filed written version stating therein that complainant Maan Singh moved an application to Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Jind for inspection of his paddy fields whereupon a team of officials was constituted to inspect the spot. Upon inspection, it was found that there are two different types of plants in the standing paddy crops in the field of the complainant and percentage of plants of main crop was 40% whereas remaining 60% plants were of different variety. In this way, OP No.3 has urged that complainant is not a consumer of OP No.3 and thus, present complaint does not lie against the answering OP and deserves to be dismissed against OP No.3.

3.                     In order to prove the contention of complainant, learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence. 

                        On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of one Sh. Mahabir Singh, Manager OP No.1 as Annexure OPW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures OP1/1 to OP1/14 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2 whereas OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Satyawan, S.D.A.O. Safidon as Annexure OPW3/A alongwith documents as Annexures OP3/1 & OP3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and evaluated the record placed on file very carefully.

5.                     Learned counsel for complainant has argued that the paddy seeds so purchased by complainant from Ops did not grow properly and on inspection by Agriculture Department-OP No.3 two different types of plants were found at different stages in field of the complainant and percentage of plant of main crop was 40% whereas 60% plaints were of different variety. Counsel for complainant has further contended that seeds so sold by OPs were of poor quality and defective one resulting into less production because of which complainant has suffered huge loss in crop production and submitted that the act & conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and prayed for allowing the complaint. In support of his case, counsel for complainant has placed reliance on case law titled as M/s National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M/s Madhusudhan Redddy & Another rendered in Civil Appeal No.7543 of 2004 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 16.01.2012 wherein it has been held that “In order to prove that the seed sold to complainant was not sub-standard/defective, the petitioner company could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory which is failed to do.  Further, it is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. On the other hand, a Senior Officer of the Govt. had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective. Thus no adverse inference can be drawn against complainant on ground of his having not sent, the sample of seed for testing to a laboratory”.

                        On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs urged that the complainant might have not followed the proper procedure for planting the paddy seed in question and spraying the pesticides in time and the inspection report given by the officers of the Agriculture Department is not tenable in the eyes of law because they have not followed the instructions of Govt./higher authorities by not associating at least one representative of the OP Seed Agency as well as one Scientist of KGK/KVK or HAU at the time of inspection of fields as mandated by Director Agriculture Haryana.  Further, the report given by the officer is not authentic one as they have failed to mention the cause of growth of two types of plants resulting into low production of paddy crop either due to defective/inferior quality of seeds or due to any other reason. Counsel for Ops vehemently argued that the complainant has also failed to place on record, report of any laboratory to ascertain that the paddy seeds in question sold by OP No.1 were of inferior quality and defective one. Apart from this, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 specifically urged that the paddy seed in question was of good quality as the same was also sold to other farmers but no complaint was ever received regarding the sub-standard quality of the seed from any other farmer and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                        To support their version, counsel for OPs placed reliance on the case law delivered in First Appeal No.349 of 2014 titled as Vijay Singh Vs. M/s Om Shanti Sales Corporation and others decided on 19.08.2015 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula wherein Hon’ble State Commission has held that “Mere allegations of defective seeds cannot be conclusive proof unless and until supported by any cogent and convincing evidence. The report submitted by the Committee of Agriculture Officers nowhere reflects that the seeds supplied by the OP to the complainant was defective. Thus no liability can be fastened upon the OPs for the loss of crop of the complainant”.  Counsel for Ops have also placed reliance on another case law titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Sawroop, Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014 decided on 26.11.2014 wherein the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi and the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sadhu & others II (2005) CPJ-13 SC has held that ‘the onus to prove that there was defective seeds etc. was on the complainant’. Further, the counsel for Ops also placed reliance on the case law titled as Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and Company & Ors. Reported in 2013 (II) CPJ Page 617 (NC) wherein it has been held that “petitioner has not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under the provision of Section 13 (1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Petitioner has also not moved an application before the concerned authority for getting seed of the same batch, number tested from any laboratory-Report of Agriculture Department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection-inferior quality of seed not proved.”

                        Besides the above, counsel for Ops No.1 & 2 has also placed reliance on the case law titled as Naseeb Singh Vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd.  & others decided on 04.08.2017 in F.A. No.861 of 2016 which have been delivered by Hon’ble State Commission Haryana after appreciating the case laws delivered by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1451 of 2011 titled as Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaih & Anr. decided on 31.07.2013 and in another case law titled as Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Sreeniwas Reddy & others reported in II (2012) CPJ  297 wherein it has been specifically held that “Inspection without notice to opposite parties is against the principle of natural justice and case laws relied by the opposite parties fully supports the version of opposite parties. Firstly, much weight cannot be given to the expert report as the inspection was conducted without notice to the opposite parties and without associating a scientist. In the inspection report, it is nowhere mentioned that the seeds supplied to the complainant were defective and germination of the seeds was poor due to defective or spurious seeds. There may be so many reasons of poor germination of seeds. Germination of seeds depends upon the climate condition, nature of soil, proper irrigation, use of manure and fertilizers etc.”

6.                     After hearing rival contentions of both the parties and perusing the record placed on file, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased the paddy seeds from OP No.1, produced/manufactured by OP No.2. The main grievance of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality & defective one and after sowing/planting the same, different types of plants were grown up at different stages in the field of the complainant and percentage of plants of main crop was 40% whereas 60% plaints were of different variety resulting into less yield of paddy crop because of which complainant suffered loss. To prove aforesaid contention, complainant has placed reliance on inspection report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-1) wherein the officers who inspected the fields of complainant has nowhere reported that 60% off type other variety plants resulting into less production of the paddy crop was due to defective or inferior quality of seed.

                        In view of the above, we are of the firm opinion that without getting the seeds in question tested from appropriate laboratory, it cannot be said that the seed in question was of inferior quality/sub-standard but the complainant neither himself got tested the seed in question from laboratory nor moved an application in this behalf to the concerned authorities which is mandatory under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  Further, the report of committee of OP No.3 Agriculture Department nowhere stated that the seeds sold by the Ops were defective one or of sub-standard quality. Besides it, no any officer of the Agriculture department has appeared before the Commission nor submitted any affidavit to authenticate the loss caused to the complainant. Perusal of letter Annexure OP1/8 tendered by OPs clearly reveals that the officers of Agriculture Department alone have no authority to inspect the fields of farmers regarding any complaint of poor quality seed as per instructions issued by Director, Agriculture Haryana vide memo no.52-70/TA(SS)PKL dated 03.01.2002 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that if there is any complaint regarding poor quality of seed, then field of the complainant farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of agriculture department and one representative of concerned seed  agency and at least one Scientist of KGK/KVK/HAU but these instructions have not been complied with meticulously by the officers of Agriculture Deptt. and thus we have no hesitation in holding that the inspection report (Annexure C-1) relied upon by complainant in this case is no report in the eyes of law and on the basis of this report, it cannot  be inferred that seeds were of sub-standard quality & defective one. On the contrary, OPs No.1 & 2 has placed on record test report (Annexure OP1/6) of the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency (A State Govt. Undertaking) w.r.t. sample of paddy Seed of same lot no.Oct-17-07-01-83 and same variety wherein test results have been found 98% by Chief Seed Certification Officer on 12.01.2018 i.e. prior to the sale of seed to complainant vide invoice No.1169/114 dated 05.05.2018 (Annexure C-2) and statements of various farmers (Annexures OP1/11 to Annexures OP1/14) wherefrom it is crystal clear that there was no complaint from any farmer with regard to inferior quality of paddy seed of same variety & same lot no.Oct-17-07-01-83.

                        Apart from the above, the case law submitted by the counsel for complainant is not applicable to the facts & circumstances of present case since in the case law titled as M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Madhusuddan Reddy & Another (supra), the Senior Officer of Govt. who inspected the crop clearly reported under his hand & seal that the seeds were defective whereas in the case of complainant, the aforesaid element of defective seed is missing in the inspection report Annexure C-1 (though the report is also not tenable in light of instructions of Director Agriculture Haryana) whereas on the other hand, case laws produced by Ops counsels are fully applicable to the facts & circumstances of the case in hand.  

                        Accordingly, the facts narrated above lead to the conclusion that the factum of complainant having suffered a loss due to sub-standard/inferior & defective quality of seeds so sold by OPs is not established by any scientific or any other evidence and further, relying upon the report of Agriculture Department alone, it cannot be stated that the version of complainant is true. So, in such a situation, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.