Haryana

Kurukshetra

47/2018

Surender Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Seeds - Opp.Party(s)

Gur Lal

27 Jul 2021

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint Case No.47 of 2018.

Date of instt: 1.03.2018 

                                                                       Date of Decision: 27.07.2021.

 

Surinder Pal, aged about 45 years, son of Sh.Ram Sarup, resident of village Khanpur, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                                ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

 

1.M/s Haryana Seeds Corporation Limited, Umri, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra through its authorized person.

 

2.M/s  I & B Seeds Pvt.Limited (Indus Seeds), No.15/3A, Noorjibali Nursery Compound, Sriniwaspura, Kangheri Road, Bangluru – 560000.

..………Opposite parties.

 

                Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.   

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

 

Present:     Sh.  Gurlal Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh. Atul Mittal Advocate for the OP No.1.

                Sh.Sultan Singh Advocate for OP No.2.

ORDER     

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Surinder Pal   against  M/s Haryana Seeds  etc, the opposite parties.

 

2.            Brief  facts of the present complaint are that  is agriculturist by profession and he purchased 500 gms of Capscium  for a consideration of Rs.35,000/- from OP No.1 vide receipt  dated 23.09.2016. He planted the said seed in his four acres of land after making nursery at village Khanpur  District Karnal as per recommendation of OP No.1. It was assured by the OP No.1 that the said seed will give high ratio of capsicum ( about 200/250 qtl. In the fields of the complainant.  He was  eagerly waiting for the crops to be matured and for getting fruits of the yield but even after waiting for a long time of about 4 months, even a single capsicum was not found in the field of the complainant.  The crops of other farmers gave good yield.  The complainant made a complaint to OP No.1 regarding non ripping of the crop and on the mobile number of Satish Kumar authorized supervisor of the OP No.2 and also contacted the office of OP No.1 but no one came to visit the fields of the complainant, rather threatened the complainant not to come again.  The complainant also made written complaint on 4.6.2017 to the OP No.1 and OP No.1 forwarded this copy of complaint to OP No.2 on 23.6.2017 but nothing fruitful came. After that the complainant also issued a registered legal notice to the OPs on 5.09.2017 but the No No.2 did not  turn up or gave any reply. The complainant was expecting the yield of 3.00 lacs per acre and thus a loss of Rs.12.00 lacs has been caused to the complainant by the reason of supplying of sub standard seeds by the OPs which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.12.00 lacs due to loss caused to him and  also the compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.             Upon notice OPs appeared and filed written statements. OPNo.1 in its written statement has stated that the purchase of seed is a matter of record. On the contrary, it is submitted that no authenticated proof of such either has been placed on record or supplied to the OPs for the purpose of filing an effective reply.  The3 complainant has not followed the instructions given to him attached with the seed. Moreover, every crop depends upon many factors like agro climatic conditions, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of appropriate balanced nutrients and  effective use of fertilizers etc. apart from  the seed quality. Merely preparation of field , sowing of seed and  supply of nutrients do nothing without adopting proper agriculture practices. Rather the complainant has forwarded false story in the complaint which is vague, false and having no legal weight. It is submitted that seed is manufactured by a National Company which is known for its quality products throughout the India and mandatorily tested in laboratory before placing in the market.  It is settled law  in   case of non getting the fruit within 45 to 60 days, of this variety of seed as after the transplantation of nursery in Feb. 2017 as confirmed by the complainant in legal notice dated 5.9.2017, a complaint should have been moved by him in the office of DHO within the month of March 2017 and complainant also not made any complaint to any Agriculture Office of the Disitrict where he resides in the month of 2017 and April 2017 regarding not getting of fruit. So that resultantly enquiring report be placed by the competent authorities and OPs. This unfair practice of the complainant shows that the complainant  has got the fruits ;in the month of March 2017 and April 2017 and then thereafter he made false complaint to extract money from the OPs. It is also stated that the complainant has not made compliance of Section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act.  It is also stated that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and the present complaint is not maintainable. Thus, it is stated that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.             The OP No.2 in its written statement has disputed the claim of the complainant.  Purchase of the seeds is stated to be a matter of record.  It is stated that the answering OP has not given any supervision to the complainant nor the complainant contacted him for any supervision. The proper care and precaution has not been adopted by the complainant at the time of sowing the seed and due to this   reason, less  germination has taken place. It is submitted that no complaint/notice has been given by the complainant to the answering OP nor answering OP refused to accept any complaint. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and it is stated that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed his evidence.

 

6.             On the other hand, OP No.1 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.OW1/A and tendered documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O6 and the OP No.2 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed  its evidence.

 

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

8.             The  learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased 500 gms of Capscium   for a consideration of Rs.35,000/- from OP No.1 vide receipt  dated 23.09.2016. He planted the said seed in his four acres of land after making nursery at village Khanpur  District Karnal as per recommendation of OP No.1. It was assured by the OP No.1 that the said seed will give high ratio of capsicum ( about 200/250 qtl. In the fields of the complainant.  He was  eagerly waiting for the crops to be matured and for getting fruits of the yield but even after waiting for a long time of about 4 months, even a single capsicum was not found in the field of the complainant.  The crops of other farmers gave good yield.  The complainant made a complaint to OP No.1 regarding non ripping of the crop and on the mobile number of Satish Kumar authorized supervisor of the OP No.2 and also contacted the office of OP No.1 but no one came to visit the fields of the complainant, rather threatened the complainant not to come again.  The complainant also made written complaint on 4.6.2017 to the OP No.1 and OP No.1 forwarded this copy of complaint to OP No.2 on 23.6.2017 but nothing fruitful came. After that the complainant also issued a registered legal notice to the OPs on 5.09.2017 but the No No.2 did not  turn up or gave any reply. The complainant was expecting the yield of 3.00 lacs per acre and thus a loss of Rs.12.00 lacs has been caused to the complainant by the reason of supplying of sub standard seeds by the OPs which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

9.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops while reiterating the  contentions made in the written statement has argued that answering OP has not given any supervision to the complainant nor the complainant contacted him for any supervision. The proper care and precaution has not been adopted by the complainant at the time of sowing the seed and due to this   reason, less  germination has taken place. It is submitted that no complaint/notice has been given by the complainant to the answering OP nor answering OP refused to accept any complaint. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and it is stated that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

10.            After hearing the learned counsel for the partiesd and going through the material available on the case file, we observe as under:

 

i)              The purchase of the seeds  of Capscium   for a consideration of Rs.35,000/- from OP No.1 vide receipt  dated 23.09.2016  Ex.C-1 are not in dispute. Neither any of the  Ops have disputed the same. The Ops have stated that there was no defect in the seeds and none of the farmers who have also purchased  the said seeds of the same lot have complained in this regard. The complainant has even failed to brought on record any affidavit of any nearby farmer or  respectables of the village to prove that in fact crops of Capscium  of the complainant did not gave yield and the complainant suffered huge loss on this account. 

 

ii)              The argument of the learned counsel for the Ops that the seeds in question were sold by them on 23.09.2016 and  preparation of  Paneeri takes time of 22-30 days and in this way,fruits  to the plants must have started in December 2016 but the complainant has not sowed the crops in time  because he moved the complaint to OP No.2 on 23.6.2017 and meaning thereby the complainant prepared the paneeri and sowed the crops during April or May 2017 and not at the appropriate time. Thus, the complainant has not  followed the proper instructions meant for the Capscium. Therefore, moving of applications Annexure –B and C and issuance of legal notice Annexure –D are not helpful to the case of the complainant.

 

iii)                 To prove his case, as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, compliance of Sectioon 13(1) (c) has not been done by the complainant as he has not got tested the seeds in question from any laboratory.Therefore, non compliance of Section 13(1) (c)of the Consumer Protection Act is fatal for the case of the complainant.

 

iv)                     Further, the complainant has neither made any complaint reegarding defect in the seeds or crops to the District Administration or to the Agriculture Department. As per Ex.O-5 and Ex.O-6   Director Agriculture, Haryana has given instructions to the Agriculture Department to conduct the inspections  on receipt of complaints from the farmers but the complainant has failed to get his crops inspected and as such oral submission of the complainant is of no avail.

 

v)             The argument of the complainant that as per copy of Girdwari Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 it is proved that the complainant had sown the crops of Capscium in his field. But we are not  inclined to accept this argument of the learned counsel for the complainant  because a perusal of the girdwari Ex.C-8 and  Ex.C-9 shows that the complainant had sown the crops of Capscium   in his fields but it  does not shows that there was any defect in the crop of Capscium    sown by the complainant. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the complainant is  hereby rejected.  Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and the present comlpaint deserves to be dismissed.

 

11.            In view of our above mentioned findings, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is ,therefore, dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.: 27.07.2021                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                 President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                               Member.