BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No:176 of 2013.
Date of Instt.: 12.11.2012/22.12.2016
Date of Order: 27.06.2017
Suresh Kumar son of Ghasi Ram resident of Dhani Mohabbatpur Tehisl Mandi Adampur District Hisar.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited, Fatehabad IFFCO Seva Kendra Fatehabad Bhattu Mandi District.
2.Development Officer IFDS Circle Bhattu Mandi, Fatehabad.
3.IFFCO Colony, Sector 17B Gurgaon 122001
4.IFFCO Sadan C1 District Center Saket Place New Delhi 110017.
…Respondents.
Present: Sh.R.S.Panghal, Presiding Member. Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Argued by: Sh.Kaushal Mehta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.C.D.Singla, counsel for Opposite parties.
ORDER:
The present complaint filed by Sh. Suresh Kumar was previously decided by this Form and the same was dismissed vide Order dated 23.01.2014. Aggrieved with the order dated 23.01.2014, the complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula vide order dated 09.11.2016 accepted the appeal and remitted the matter to this Form to decide the same afresh after affording opportunity to parties to lead their respective evidence.
Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant had purchased 35 kgs of Guar Seed HG563 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.14000/- vide cash memo No.092 of book No.62 dated 26.05.2012 to sow the same in his land. The complainant had followed all the instructions of the OPs at the time of sowing the seeds in his fields but despite that there was less fruit on the plants which were having great height and the root cause of the above said problem is inferior and adulterated seeds supplied by the OP No.1. On the request of the complainant, the official of Agriculture Department had inspected the fields of the complainant on 12.10.2012 and assessed the loss to the extent of 80-90 %. The complainant requested the OPs to compensate on account of the alleged loss but all fell on deaf ears. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has not only suffered mental agony and harassment but also suffered financial loss which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
2. On notice, the OPs appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing separate replies. OPs No.1, 3 & 4 in their joint reply has taken several preliminary objections such as maintainability and cause of action etc. It is submitted that the seed sold by the OP to the complainant was of good quality and the same was certified according to law by the seed certifying agency of government of Haryana. There is no complaint regarding germination of seeds and the report of inspection of agriculture department is no report in the eyes of law as the inspecting team did not try to verify the ownership and possession of the field and even no khasra number or area of the field in question has been mentioned in the report. Moreover, no notice was given to the OP about the visit of the official of the Agriculture Department to the fields. The variation in the condition of the crop in the same lot of seed at different fields may not be attributed to the quality of seed but the other factors including high salt, concentration, brackish water, moisture content, sowing method and soil physical conditions which also play major role in yield of crop. The report in question is in violation of the instructions of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana Panchkula vide memo No52-70/TA (SS) dated PKL 3rd January, 2002. Question of mixing of another seed in the certified seed by the OPs does not arise at all. The complainant did not suffer any loss as 5 to 6 Kgs of Guar seed is required for sowing an area of one acre. The yield depends upon natural causes. The content made in the complaint and the inspection report are self contradictory and falsifies the claim of each other. OP No.2 in its separate reply has taken more or less the same grounds as taken by the OPs No.1, 3 & 4 in their joint reply. The OPs have controverted the other pleas of the complainant and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In compliance of the order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission both the parties were afforded proper opportunity to lead their respective evidence and on 14.03.2017 the complainant in his evidence, tendered documents Ex.A-12 and Annexure A-13 and Annexure A-14 besides the affidavit/documents already tendered as Ex.AW1, Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-11. The OPs have already tendered affidavits and documents Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A, Ex.R1 to Ex.R-23 and did not lead any fresh evidence. Thereafter, both the parties closed their respective evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased seeds of Guar from the OP No.1 and had sown the same in his fields but due to adulterated mixed and inferior quality of seeds there was less fruit despite the fact that that the plants were having great height.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs has argued that in the report Ex.A2 submitted by Agriculture Department there is not mentioning of khasra numbers in which the complainant has allegedly sown the seeds. Moreover, the alleged inspection has not been made in the presence of OPs. It has been further argued that Haryana State Seed Certification Agency who used to supervise the process of manufacturing of seed has issued certificates Ex.R1 to Ex.R23 regarding 70 % germination and 98 % purity of seed in question and therefore, the question of supply of adulterated seeds to the complainant does not arise. If there was any adulteration in the seeds, then it would have been for the whole lot of seeds but there was no complaint from any other farmer. Without any expert evidence on the record as provided in Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act it cannot be said that seeds sold to the complainant were adulterated. It has been further argued that the complainant have failed to bring on record any evidence as to what basis he has assessed the loss allegedly suffered due to seeds. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the OP has placed reliance of case laws titled as Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and others 2007 (2) CLT 683, Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company & Anr. II (2013) 617 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that Petitioner had not got the seed tested from any laboratory as required under provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of Act, 1986-He had also not moved application before concerned authorities for getting the seed of 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 seeds not proved. Learned counsel for the OP has further argued that the complainant has not proved on file that he has suffered any loss as alleged by him on account of adulteration of seeds because the seeds were duly certified by the Haryana State Seeds Agency and the same were in conformity with prescribed standard.
6. On careful examination of the documents and affidavits of parties read with arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is transpired that the complainant has been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence. There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased 35 KGs Guar seed HG-563 from OP No.1 vide cash memo No.092 of book No.62 dated 26.05.2012 for a sum of Rs.14,000/- which has been placed on the case file as Ex.A1. It is also evident from Annexure A-13 that a number of complaints from farmers were received in the District Office of Agriculture, Sirsa against the IFFCO regarding adulteration in the Guar Seed sold by it. From Annexure A-14, it is also established that the Deputy Director Agriculture had directed the officers to inspect the fields of many farmers from whom complaint regarding adulteration in the seed sold by IFFCO was received. So far as the question of identity of the land inspected by the officials of Agriculture Department is concerned we would like to say that there is ample evidence on record to prove the same. It has been specifically pleaded by the complainant in his complaint that he had sown the seeds purchased from OP No.1 in the agriculture land of which he is in cultivating possession as is evident through mutation dated 05.06.2013 (Ex.A10). No doubt in the inspection report (Ex.A2) the officials of Agriculture Department had not mentioned any rect.and kill numbers of the land inspected by them but in this report it has been specifically mentioned that in 10 acres of land there is mixture of seeds to the extent of 80% to 90% and on account of this mixture the farmer has suffered a loss in the Guar crop to the extent of 80% to 90%. The submission made by learned counsel for the OPs that the report dated 15.10.2012 cannot be read in evidence as the fields have not been inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana with regard to constitution of inspection team is not tenable. In case any lapse has been committed by the Agriculture Department in constitution of the team in that eventuality the complainant cannot be held liable for the same and the complainant cannot be allowed to suffer on account of lapse, if any on the part of Agriculture Department. We thus hold that the report of officials of Agriculture Department Annexure C2 can very well be read in evidence. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Dharam Pal & Sons and others Vs. Som Parkash II (2014) CPJ 703 (NC) wherein it has been held that Seeds-Defects Loss suffered-Inspection of field-Deficiency in service-Unfair trade practice- District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission dismissed appeal- Hence, revision- As per report complainant had suffered loss in his paddy crop to the extent of 50 % on account of substandard quality of seeds sold to by him OPs. There is nothing to lable it as any ill-will by members of joint inspection team and seller of seed-Deficiency proved-Compensation awarded. Moreover, there is nothing on the file to show that the officers while giving the report Annexure C2 were partial and the plea qua collusion of the Agriculture Officers with the complainant is also rejected.
7. Now we deal with another plea advanced by learned counsel for the parties with respect to non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. No doubt the complainant did not apply for sending the sample of the purchased seed to the laboratory for test as required under Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act. Usually a farmer purchases the quantity of seeds, insecticide or herbicide which is required by him for sowing or spraying in his fields, it is not expected from a farmer to conserve certain quantity of seed for getting the same tested in the lab to comply with the above said provisions. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant on this ground. Holding these vies we have relied upon the observations of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission contained in a case titled as National Seeds Corporation Vs. M.Madhusudan Reddy, 2004 (2) CLT 301 wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that a farmer is not expected to conserve certain portion of seed to meet the ludicrous expectation of the petitioner to produce some seeds from somewhere to get it tested to meet the requirements of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act. It was incumbent upon the opposite parties to get the seeds tested of same batch number and same variety tested from appropriate laboratory after the complaint had approached the opposite party in respect of less germination of the above said seeds. It is established on record that the complainant had approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa upon which the Guar crop of the complainant was inspected by agriculture authorities.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is concluded from the evidence adduced by the complainant that mixed seeds were sold to the complainant therefore, he has suffered financial loss to the tune of 80 to 90 % as is clear from the report Annexure C2. Since it is very well established that the seeds were mixed, therefore, the plea of the OPs that minimum 8 KGs seeds are required for one acre stands as per the norms of Haryana Agriculture University stands in-fructuous and is rejected.
9. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances we have reached at a conclusion that if the complainant had been able to receive full amount of crop in 10 acres then he might have received Rs.6,00,000/- but as per the report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C2) the complainant had suffered loss to the tune of 80 to 90 % of crop, therefore, the end of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- in lump sum, for the loss suffered by him along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization which shall be paid by the OPs jointly and severally. The compliance of order be made within 30 days. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM Dt.21.06.2017
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal)
Member Presiding Member
