Haryana

Ambala

CC/394/2018

Surinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

I & B Seeds Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

11 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :  394 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution           : 07.12.2018

                                                          Date of decision     :  11.02.2020.

 

Surinder Kumar son of Shri Valayat Ram @ Ved Parkash aged about 60 years, resident of village Durana, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.  I & B Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 15/3, Nojibail Nursery, Ganakallu, Dr. Vishnuvardhan Road Srinivasapura, Bengaluru (Karnataka) (India)- 560060 through its Authorized Person/ Vice President Marketing.

2.  M/s Sohan Lal Aggarwal, 52, Pratap Mandi, Shahabad (Markanda)- 136135 (Haryana) through its Authorized Person.

 3. Haryana Seed Develop Corporation Limited, Booth No.34, Near Anaj Mandi, Hisar Road, Ambala City.

 

     2^nd Address: Registered Office Address: HSDC, Bays No.3-6, Sector-2, Panchkula (Haryana)

 

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                  

                            

Present:       Shri Tarun Kalra, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Rakesh Achint, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1          alongwith Shri Mahavir Singh Lather, General Manager.

Shri S.S. Grewal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

Shri Vipul Singh, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.15,00,000/- as damages/compensation suffered by the complainant on account of loss of crop, loss of labour, mental agony and physical harassment.
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigations expenses. 
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that complainant is having agricultural land at village Durana, District Amabla. On 11.09.2017, he purchased tomato seeds of variety “SAMPADA” from OP No.3, manufactured by OP No.1, marketed by OP NO.2. He had sown the said seeds in his 3 acres of land as per the instructions of the manufacturer. In spite of taking proper care, he noticed that the growth of the plants was slow and the size of the tomatoes was small and there were lines on the tomatoes. He complained about the same to the OPs and visited the OPs No.2 and 3 several times, but no action was taken by them. Ultimately on 20.03.2018, complainant made a complaint to the District Horticulture Office/Officer, Ambala to look into the matter. The District Horticulture Officer, Ambala informed the OPs No.1 and 2, with regard to the complaint filed against them. When the OPs did not give any response, then the said Office constituted a committee of experts to inspect the fields of the complainant. Accordingly, in the month of April, 2018, Members of the Committee inspected the fields of the complainant and other farmers too who purchased the tomato seeds having same quality/batch. After inspection, Committee found that the seed of the tomatoes were of sub standard quality and as a result whereof, complainant suffered loss of his tomato crop. On 20.04.2018, the Inspection Committee submitted its report to District Horticulture Officer, Ambala, stating therein that the size of the tomatoes was very small and there were marks on the tomatoes and due to this reason, the crop was not fit to be sold in the market. The committee also found a packet of seed Lot No.171803804 of I & B Seeds Pvt. Ltd. on the spot. Due to bad quality of seeds the complainant suffered a loss of about 5 Lakh rupees including removal charges of bad crop. By providing bad quality of seeds, OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no locus standi, estoppel, beyond time limit, no territorial jurisdiction,   concealment of material facts, time barred. On merits, it is stated that no conclusive proof has been submitted by the complainant. Complainant has not followed the instructions mentioned on the packets of tomato seeds. Moreover, growth of the crop depends upon various factors like agro climatic conditions, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of appropriate nutrients and effective use of fertilizers and insecticide etc. Merely preparation of fields, sowing of seed and supply of nutrients is not sufficient to get a good quality of crop, without adopting proper agriculture practices. Moreover, tomato seeds were not sent for testing to any laboratory. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits and same may be dismissed with costs.

                   Upon notice OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no locus standi, concealment of material facts, non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13(1) (c) of C.P. Act. On merits, it is stated that as per the knowledge of the OP No.3, OP No.1 after receiving letter from District Horticulture Officer, Ambala inspected the fields of complainant and reported that there was no issue with regard to quality of the seeds. Vide letter dated 27.04.2018, OP No.3 also informed and gave detailed reasons to District Horticulture, Ambala about the performance and production of plants on various factors. OP No.2 sent a letter dated 27.04.2018 to District Horticulture, Ambala informing the concerned officer about the visit of Dr. M.S. Lather, expert of the company, on 09.04.2018. There was no quality issue at the time of visit by Dr. M.S. Lather and complainant was explained each and every aspect. Even requested to send sample of seed to any university. Denying rest of allegations levelled by the complainant, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint filed against it.

                    Upon notice OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no locus standi, concealment of material facts, non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13(1) (c) of C.P. Act. On merits, it is stated that as per the knowledge of the OP No.3, OP No.1 after receiving letter from District Horticulture Officer, Ambala inspected the fields of complainant and reported that there was no issue with regard to quality of the seeds. Vide letter dated 27.04.2018, OP No.3 also informed and gave detailed reasons to District Horticulture, Ambala about the performance and production of plants on various factors. Denying rest of allegations levelled by the complainant, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint filed against it.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-18 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shri Mahavir Singh Lather, Manager, I & B, Co. Ltd., District Kurukshetra as Annexure OP1/A alongwith document Annexure OP1/1 & OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. On the other hand learned counsel for the OP No.3, tendered affidavit of Jaibir Singh, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure RW3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3. No evidence was tendered by the OP No.2 and same was closed by the order of this Forum vide order dated 16.01.2020.

4.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased tomato seeds of variety “SAMPADA” manufactured by OP No.1 and marketed by OP No.2 from OP No.3, for a sum of Rs.4690/- vide invoice dated 11.09.2017, Annexure C-16. The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the said seeds were sown by the complainant in his 3 acres of land, as per the instructions of the manufacturer. Inspite of taking proper care, the growth of the tomato crop was not satisfactory. The size of the tomatoes was very small and there were lines on the tomatoes. In the inspection report Annexure C-10, it is specifically mentioned that the tomato crop was not found OK. The size of the tomatoes were small and there were dark lines on the tomatoes and were not worth for sale. From the said report it is very clear that the seeds sold by the OPs were of sub-standard quality due to which the complainant had suffered a huge loss and is thus entitled to get compensation from the OPs. The learned counsel for the OPs argued that inspection report given by the Officer of Department of Horticulture, Agriculture Department and Department of Gardening is not tenable in the eyes of law, because they have not followed the instructions of Government/Higher Authorities by not associating the OPs or their representatives at the time of inspection of the fields. Even otherwise, in the inspection report it is nowhere mentioned that seeds were of inferior/substandard quality. Complainant has not produced any report of laboratory to prove that the seeds were of inferior/sub standard quality. He further argued that lines on the tomatoes, perhaps may be due to some other reasons. On the basis of said report, it cannot be said that the seeds in question were of inferior/sub-standard quality. It may be stated here that the team of inspection committee who inspected the fields has not followed the instructions issued by the Agricultural Department, Haryana vide memo No.52-70 dated 03.01.2002 (Marked as A), according to which the inspection team was bound to issue a notice to the OPs before inspecting the fields, but inspection in the said case was conducted, in the absence of the OPs. In the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited Vs. Ram Swarup CLT 2014 -60 (NC), it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that report obtained without notice to the OP  cannot be relied upon. No doubt, good quality of seeds are required to get a good crop, but this fact also cannot be ignored that growth/yield of the crop also depends upon other factors like agro climatic conditions, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited Versus Sandhu and Anr. Vol. II 2005  CLT 569 as well as Mahyo Seeds Corporation Limited Versus Basappa Channappa Mokki and others in Civil Appeal No.2428/2008 has held that variation in condition of crop need not necessarily be attributed to the quality of seeds, but to other facts unless there is specifically mentioned about the inferior quality of seeds. In the report of the Inspection Committee it is nowhere mentioned that the seeds in question were of inferior/sub-standard quality. Taking all these facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently we dismiss the same without any order as to costs. Certified copies 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.

Announced on :11.02.2020

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                           Member                         President