Haryana

Karnal

547/2012

Balbir Singh S/o Jai Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Agricultural Research Institule - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. N.K. Zak

24 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 547 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.20.11.2012

                                                               Date of decision:24.08.2016

 

Balbir Singh son of Shri Jai Singh, resident of village Hemda, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

Indian Agricultural Research Institute, opposite N.D.R.I. Aggarsain Chowk, Karnal, through its Director.

                                                                   ………… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

         

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri N.K. Zak Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Rama Kant Advocate for the Opposite party.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased 120 kilograms seed of PB-1121 variety of the paddy, from opposite party at the rate of Rs.55/- per Kilogram, vide bill no.81201 dated 9.3.2011, for a sum of Rs.6600/-. He had sown the said seed in his field by taking all precautions and method for good yield. After lapse of period, he found that the yield was not upto the mark and the crop had not grown to its full potential. He approached the opposite party and complained about the quality of seed supplied to him, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to his complaint, rather straightway refused to entertain his complaint. Thereafter, he moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal for inspection of his paddy crop. The Committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, inspected his field on 26.9.2011 and found that there was mixture of other seed approximately 9% in the seed purchased him and loss of 9% was assessed in the paddy yield. He again approached the opposite party and gave photocopy of the report, but the opposite party did not listen to him. Such act and conduct of opposite party, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused him loss to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- apart from mental pain, agony and harassment.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint; that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer and controversy involved in the complaint is not a consumer dispute and that the complaint is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed in order to extract money from the opposite party.

                   On merits, factum of purchase of paddy seed by the complainant has not been disputed. It has been submitted that no precaution was taken by the complainant at the time of sowing the seed in his field. For getting good yield of any crop, sowing of seed is an important process, because it might have also happened that some other seed might have been mixed or the land in which the seed was sown might have not been prepared properly as per the process of modern technology. The most important source of admixture/contamination at farmer’s level are mainly due to mis-handling during nursery raising, volunteer plants or mishandling at the time of transplanting.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant visited opposite party with an application on 10.10.2011 and he was informed that separate enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal as per the copy of the letter received in the office on 26.9.2011 and opposite party would join the enquiry as and when required. No person of the opposite party was called by officers of the Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal at the time of inspection of the crop on 26.9.2011 itself. No Rice Expert from any other Institute was joined in the inspection team. Story put forward by the complainant is false and concocted and there was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of  Salwinder Singh Atwal Ex.RW1/A , affidavit of Dr. V.K. Pandita Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to O5 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant had purchased paddy seed of PB-1121 variety from opposite party on 9.3.2011. It has been alleged that he had sown the said seed in the land measuring 22½ acres, but the copy of Jamabandi Ex.C2 shows that his father Jai Singh had only ¼ share in the total land measuring 347 Kanals, 14 Marlas. On the application of the complainant Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal constituted a committee, which inspected the field of the complainant on 26.9.2011 and submitted report, the copy of which is Ex.C5, according to which there were 9% other varieties plants, which were in grain formation stage and thus there was loss of 9% in the paddy yield due to uneven ripening. In the report it has not been mentioned specifically that the entire land measuring 22½ acres was inspected by the Committee or a particular field was only inspected and the report was prepared on that basis. In the report it has only been mentioned that the complainant told that he had transplanted 22½ acres from the said seed. It is not in dispute that in the year 2011 paddy seed was not directly sown in the field, rather nursery used to be prepared from the seed and then the seedlings used to be planted in the field. Before planting seedlings from nursery, it is necessary that field should be prepared properly as per the process of modern technology. Paddy seed of the previous year crop may fall in the field at the time of harvesting the crop and if the field is not prepared properly before transplanting the seedlings for the new crop, then some seed of the previous crop lying in the field may germinate. Moreover, if farmer prepares nursery of different varieties of paddy seed, then also there may be some mixing while transplanting the seedlings into the fields due to some mistake on the part of the labourers.

 7.               The Expert Committee of Agriculture Department should have given a specific report regarding the process adopted by the complainant and the precautions taken by him while planting seedlings from nursery into the field, but there is no mention in the report regarding such facts. Had there been mixing in the seed sold by the opposite party to the complainant, then the percentage of such mixing must have been more than the other variety plants found by the Inspection Team in the field of the complainant. In the report it has also not been mentioned as to what was the stage of the plants of PB-1121 variety and whether the variety plants could be harvested without damaging the plants of PB-1121.

8.                 The presence of other variety plants in such small quality i.e. 9% could be due not preparing the field by the complainant properly before planting the seedlings from the nursery as the seed lying in the field of the previous year could also germinate and grow up alongwith seedlings planting in the field for the new crop or due to mixing on account of negligence/mistake by the labourers who planted the paddy seedlings. Even otherwise, there could not be any substantial loss to the complainant as he could put some extra labour for harvesting the other variety plants, which were at the ripening stage. Moreover, there is no evidence that the crop of PB-1121 and of the off variety plants found in the field, if mixed, could fetch less market price. Looking from any angle, in view of the afore discussed facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that neither there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties nor the complainant had suffered any substantial loss on account of existence of 9% off variety plants.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 24.08.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member