Haryana

Kurukshetra

41/2016

Maya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindustan - Opp.Party(s)

Shalinder PAruthi

03 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.41/16.

Date of instt. 10.2.16. 

                                                Date of Decision: 3.1.18.

 

Maya Chand son of Mehar Singh, resident of village Madando Block Ismailabad, Tehsil Pehowa District Kurukshetra.

                                                ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. M/s Hindustan Seeds & Pesticides, Thaska Road, Ismailabad, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
2.  Mohan Seed Company, New Subji Mandi, Karnal.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.              

 

 

Before               Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member

 

Present:         Shri Rakesh Lallar, Adv. for complainant.

 Sh. S.K.Gupta, Adv. for Op No.1.

 Sh. Rakesh Arora, Adv. for OP No.2.

           

ORDER

                                                             

 

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Maya Chand against Hindustan Seed & another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that complainant purchased Toriya High Breed Seeds for a sum of Rs.510/- on 30.10.2015 from Op No.1 vide bill No.236 dated 30.10.2015. At the time of purchase said seeds, OP No.1 assured that he will provide best services and the said Toriya seed genuine seed. The complainant sowed said seeds in 3 acres of land but the seed was not genuine and there was 55-60% Sarso seeds adultered in the said seed. When the seeds grown up and complainant found that there is plots of Sarso in the said three acres land and then the complainant approached OP No.1 and requested him to visit the fields and see the crop but OP No.1 did not listen and not visited the fields of complainant. The complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra regarding the above said facts and on 22.12.2015 joint team of agriculture department visited the fields and inspected the same vide report dated 23.12.2015 and it was observed that the inspecting team found 55-60% Sarso in the toriya crops of three acres land. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of Ops many a times and requested to pay compensation but they did not pay any heed. Thus, complainant claims Rs.1,90,000/- as loss of yield,Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint and the complaint is an abuse of process of law; the complaint is without any cause of action and without jurisdiction and is liable to be dismissed; as per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant is not the consumer for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed; the complaint is barred by the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed on this score alone; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum, for that reason also, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The true facts are that the complainant purchased Toriya seed from the opposite party no.1 and the said seed was purchased by the opposite party no.1 from the opposite party no.2 vide bill invoice No.3856 dated 3.10.2015. Opposite party no.1 purchased the seed in sealed condition and sold the same in the same sealed condition. A due bill was issued in the name of the complainant. The opposite party no.1 is dealing in the sale of best quality seeds. The said seed has been manufactured by Hi-Tech Kamboj Seeds Shop No.19, Opposite New Grain Market, Indri, Karnal i.e. from Op No.2. The quality of the seed and germination thereof depends upon numerous factors like variety of the land, moisture in the land, weather/ climate and fertile power etc. The complainant has procured good yield and now has filed this false and frivolous complaint, which is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objection was reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.            OP No.2 contested the complaint by filing the separate written statement raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Section 2(1) (d) in as such as the seed has been purchased for commercial purpose for earning profits; that the report alleged to have been prepared by the officials of the agriculture department is totally false and incorrect as at the time of alleged inspection, neither any notice was served nor the Ops was informed to reach the spot; that the Patwari was also not called to show the land where the complainant’s fields situate; that as per letter dated 3.1.2002 bearing Memo No.52-7-/TA(SS) and letter dated 18.3.2009 bearing Memo No.744-62/TA (L) issued by the director of agriculture department, Haryana to all the deputy directors of agriculture department and one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientists of the KGK/KVK, HAU but the officer of the agriculture department inspected the field as well as prepared a false report in the absence of answering OPs. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. On merits, the contents of complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were repeated and prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

5.            Both the parties have led their respective evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.            It is to be seen that there are two letters dated 3.1.2002 one issued by the Director Extension Education and another issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana. In the first letter, it was asked that HSDC may be advised/ guided to visit the headquarter particularly, the department of Seed Science & Technology or Crop Breeder in the department of Plant breeding for expert opinion, scientists of KVKs may be asked to guide the farmers to visit the headquarter particularly, the Deptt. of Seed Science & Technology for expert opinion. Then as per second letter which is again of dated 3.1.2002, it was decided that fields of complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/ KVK, HAU and report will be submitted.

8.             The intent of these letters is that the fields will be inspected by a committee including the representative of concerned seed agency and it is only in his presence that the report will be submitted. In the present case, there is nothing on record that any intimation to the representative of the opposite parties was given either by the complainant or by the inspecting team and as such, the report cannot be said to be valid one. So, when the report, on which the entire claim of the complainant is based, is not valid, no compensation can be given to the complainant.

9.             Moreover, from the inspection report, it is clear that in the inspection report, Khasra numbers/Killa Numbers of the land have not been given and in such like circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the complainant’s field was inspected. From the perusal of inspection report, it is clearly revealed that the inspection was made by the team of Agriculture Department Office, B.A.O and S.M.S, whereas, as per circular of Director Agriculture, Haryana dated 3.1.2002 fields were to be inspected by a Committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of K.G.K./K.V.K. Admittedly, inspection was not carried out after due notice to representative of Ops and admittedly, not in their presence. In such like circumstances, inspection report made by some officers of the Agriculture Department cannot be acted upon and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seed was not of standard quality. In R.P. No.1451 of 2011 Syngenta India Ltd. Vs P. Chowdaiah P,.Sreenivasulu and Sai Agro Agencies, it was observed that inspection without notice to Ops is against principles of natural justice and no reliance was placed on inspection report as it was not supplied to the Ops to present his view on the report. In judgment RP No.4280 of 2007, Mahyco  Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs G. Sreenivasa Reddy & others, relying upon an authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs V. Sadhu and another II(2005) SLT 569=11(2005) CPJ, 13 SC=(2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors Civil Appeal No.2428/2008, it was held that variation of condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is a specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The Apex Court has held that the onus to prove that there was defect in the seeds was on the complainant.

10.          In an authority cited as J.K.Agro Genetics Ltd. Versus Bhopal & Others, J.K. Agro Genetics Ltd. Vs. Dalbir Singh and others, J.K. Agro Genetics Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Kumar and another, three Revision Petitions were allowed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi. The Hon’ble National Commission found that the complaint does not show that the seeds supplied to the respondent were either defective or spurious. It was held that the initial onus to prove that the seeds were either defective or spurious was on the complainant. The only evidence produced by the complainant regarding the defective seed is the report of the District Agriculture Officer. The report submitted by the District Agriculture Officer does not say that the seeds supplied were either defective or spurious. It was held that the complainant failed to discharge the onus placed on file. It is in these circumstances, that the Revision Petition was allowed.

11.          We have gone through the above said authority. The above said authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Applying the above said law, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove on record that there was defect in the seeds.

 12.         Some legal proposition has also been added by the complainant. It is stated that the learned counsel for the Ops has argued that the seed in question was required to be tested in the Laboratory which as per settled law is not necessary. It is added that it is not the responsibility of the farmer to get the seed tested in the Laboratory as settled down in 2004(2) Consumer Law Tribunal, page 301, titled as National Seed Corporation Ltd. Vs M. Madhusudan Reddy, in which it was held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that as per Section 2(1)(f) and 14(1)(d) of Seeds Act, 1966, Section 9, when the seed was defective and poor quality seed. No provision in seed act for compensating the farmer for his loss due to defective and poor quality of seed. Remedy of the consumer lies under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also held that the Provisions of Section 13(1) (c) become unimplementable then when has to resort to alternative method. Farmer is not expected to conserve certain portion of seed to meet ludicrous expectation of OP to produce some seeds from somewhere to get it tested to meet the requirements of Section 13(1) (c).

13.          We have gone through the above said authority. There is no doubt that the remedy of the complainant lies under the Provisions of Section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not under the Seed Act. It is also to be seen that this Forum has no where reached to the conclusion that the complainant was incumbent to produce the sample of the seed in question.

14.          In this regard, it is to be seen that we have already discussed the report of Agriculture Experts and the Forum is not satisfied with the same and as such, the above said authority is not at all applicable to the present case. There may be so many reasons of poor germination of seeds.  Germination of seeds depends upon the climatic conditions, nature of soil, proper irrigation, use of manure and fertilizer etc. In these circumstances, findings can be safely given that the cause of poor germination may not be quality of seeds but may be for other reasons also as mentioned above.

15.             So, in such like circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complaint is without any merit and as such, the complaint is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

                 Copy of this order; be communicated to the parties.

Announced:   

Dt.3.1.2018                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                          President

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra

 

 

 

 

 

                        (Viraj Pahil)

                          Member