BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 33 of 2020
Date of Institution : 16.01.2020
Date of Decision : 31.10.2022
Jai Bhagwan S/o Sh. Balwan Singh R/o village Nidana Tehsil and District Jind.
.….Complainant
Versus
1. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation, Near Dalamwala Hotel Safidon Road, Jind.
2. M/s Vardhman Trading Company, Uchana through its authorized signatory.
3. NUZIVEEDU Seeds Ltd., Plot No.11-12 Near Teja Market, Behind Hotel Highway, 3rd Mile Stone, Sirsa Road, Hissar.
4. SDAO, Agriculture Department, Jind.
……Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. NEERU AGARWAL, MEMBER.
SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vinod Kumar Malik, Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh. Rampal Singh, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Jitender Nirwan, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Lokender Kumar, Adv. counsel for OP No.3.
Sh. Amit Kumar, B.T.M. O/o DDA Jind on behalf of OP No.4.
ORDER:
Shorn off unnecessary details, complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he is an agriculturist and on 17.05.2019, he purchased seed of cotton crop of PCH 9604 BG-II Lot No.-052216293 vide bill No.45 from OP No.1 who purchased the same from OP No.2 whereas OP No.2 purchased the seed in question from OP No.3. Complainant sown the said seeds in his fields but as per inspection by Agriculture Department-OP No.4, the plants were found 70 cm. in height and were less than normal height. 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.1.00 lac on account of crop loss & expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation & refund of cost of seeds, Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses 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.
OP No.1 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, 1986. OP No.1 has further urged in preliminary objection no.16 of reply to complaint that as per term no.2 & 18 of supply order bearing No.HSDC/Seeds/F/2019/368 dated 02.05.2019, “OP No.3 i.e. M/s Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., supplier shall be responsible not only for the quality and quantity of the seed supplied but also for any consequences/legal action in case any complaint/claims is lodged/decided against OP No.1 Corporation regarding the seeds supplied being sub-standard as per provisions of the Seed Act etc. On merits, it has been admitted that complainant purchased the alleged seed on 17.05.2019 from the counter of answering OP, however, complainant is owner in possession of agricultural land has been disputed by OP No.1 & urged that if the complainant was doing farming, he must have mentioned this fact in his complaint by mentioning Khewat number, rectangle number & Killa number of his agricultural land in village Nidana wherein he has sown the seed in question and adopted the proper procedure. OP No.1 has further denied inferior quality of seeds as alleged by complainant. Answering OP 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 and herbicide etc. 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 Op No.1 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 there are several factors contributing in the yield of a good crop viz. moisture in soil, depth of seed at the time of sowing, birds damage, use of pesticide, fertilizers and temperature etc. OP No.1 has further submitted that OP No.2 is Dealer/Distributor of the alleged cotton seeds whereas OP No.3 is producer/manufacturer of the same and the seed in question is duly tested & certified from the Seed Testing Laboratory, Uchani, Karnal, So, question of defective and inferior quality seed does not arise at all. In this way, OP no.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
Further, OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through counsels before the Commission and submitted replies to complaint though separately but of similar nature & contents wherein they have raised preliminary objections w.r.t. non-maintainability of complaint, no cause of action & no locus standi etc. and that the complainant has not got the seed tested from laboratory as required under Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and even has not moved any application before the concerned authorities for getting the seed of same batch number tested from any laboratory. On merits, it has been submitted that neither complainant nor any officer of Agriculture Department ever informed answering OPs prior to inspection of the fields of complainant and thus, the report of agriculture department is no report in the eyes of law since the same has been prepared at the back of answering OPs and therefore, not binding upon them and is liable to be ignored. Answering Ops further urged that the inspection committee who prepared the report are not experts with regard to seeds inspection and 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/TA(SS)/PKL dated 03.01.2002 issued by Director of Agriculture Haryana. OP No.3 has further urged that the answering OP is a reputed company in manufacturing seeds which are of high grade & give good yield and are available in the market for sale after various quality & laboratory tests which were sold to OP No.1 Corporation through OP No.2 Distributor of the company in a sealed and packed condition. In this way, answering OPs No.2 & 3 have submitted that the allegations leveled in the complaint are vague and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
OP No.4 filed written version stating therein that complainant Jai Bhagwan had moved an application to Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Jind for survey of cotton field. Upon inspection, 85% loss was assessed by the inspecting team.
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-8 and closed the evidence.
On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of one Sh. Mahabir Singh, Manager OP No.1 as Annexure OPW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures OP1/1 to OP1/17 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1 whereas learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of one Sh. Rajesh Jain proprietor of OP No.2 firm as Annexure OPW2/A and closed the evidence. Learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of one Sh. Parveen Kumar, Area Sales Manager being authorized representative of OP No.3 as Annexure OPW3/A alongwith documents as Annexures OP3/1 to Annexures OP3/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3 whereas OP No.4 tendered in evidence only documents Annexures OP4/1 to Annexures OP4/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.4.
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 cotton seeds so purchased by complainant from Ops did not germinate properly and on inspection by Agriculture Department-OP No.4, the plants were found 70 cm. in height and were less than normal height. 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 sowing the cotton 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 low height germination/low production of cotton 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 cotton seeds in question sold by OP No.1 were of inferior quality and defective one. Apart from this, OP No.1 specifically urged that the cotton 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 Op No.3 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 cotton seeds from OP No.1, produced/manufactured by OP No.3 and sold to OP No.1 through OP No.2, distributor of OP No.3. The main grievance of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality & defective one and after sowing the same, average height of the plants was found less in comparison to normal height resulting into less yield of cotton crop because of which complainant suffered loss. To prove aforesaid contention, complainant has placed reliance on inspection report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-4) wherein the officers who inspected the fields of complainant has nowhere reported that the low height of cotton plants resulting into less production of the cotton crop was due to defective or inferior quality of seed and further reported that on verification of seed in question from OPs, the stock of seed with the OP was nil, therefore, no any sample of the seed was taken for sending the same to laboratory for analysis.
In view of the above, we are of the firm opinion that without getting the seeds in question tested from appropriated 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.4 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 to authenticate the loss caused to the complainant. Perusal of letter Annexure OP3/2 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 and herbicide as per instructions issued by Director, Agriculture Haryana vide memo no.52-70/TA(SS)PKL dated 03.01.2002 (Annexure OP1/9) 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-4) 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, OP No.1 has placed on record test report of the Seed Testing Laboratory, UCHANI, KARNAL (Annexure OP 1/5) w.r.t. sample of Hybrid Cotton Seed of same lot no.052216293 and same variety wherein test results have been found 100% by Seed Analyst on 12.06.2019 i.e. after the sale of seed to complainant vide invoice No.45 dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure C-5) and statements of various farmers (Annexures OP1/12 to Annexures OP1/16) wherefrom it is crystal clear that there was no complaint from any farmer with regard to inferior quality of cotton seed of same variety & same lot no.052216293.
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-4 (though the report is also not tenable in light of the 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.
