STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 28.02.2018
Date of final hearing: 05.05.2023
Date of pronouncement: 21.06.2023
First Appeal No.257 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
- Jagdish Hybird Seeds Company, H.O. Jind Chungi Chowk, Hansi, District Hisar (Haryana) through its Authorized Signatory Naman Mittal son of Sh. Satish Mittal resident of House No. 914/9, Ramyana Mohalla, Hansi-125033, District Hisar (Haryana).
- Balaji Trading Company, Tehsil Road, Near Railway Station Kosli, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari through its Proprietor Sh. Jai Bhagwan son of Jyoti Prashad. …..Appellants
Versus
Jai Bhagwan son of Dhoop Singh, resident of Jaitpur, Tehsil and District Jhajjar (Haryana). …..Respondent
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. Rose Gupta, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Rajesh Verma, counsel for respondent.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Appellants herein have invited challenge to legality of order dated 29.01.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (In short “District Commission”) in complaint No.130 of 2017.
2. Complainant filed complaint with allegations that: he purchased 20 bags of Barley seeds of variety BH-393 worth Rs.14,800/- from OP No. 1 on 18.11.2016 for sowing in his 15 acres of agriculture land at village Jaitpur. As per inspection carried out by Agricultural Department-Jhajjar, it was found that there was mixing of other seeds in the seeds supplied to him and thus he has suffered huge loss of crops. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs/appellants, he filed complaint to seek directions against OPs to pay him: Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation towards loss of crops, compensation on account of mental agony, harassment etc. with litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OPs raised contest. In defence, it is admitted that complainant purchased seed @ Rs.740/- per bag from OP No. 1. It is asserted that complainant had not followed condition and requirement to sow barely seeds of variety BH-393, watering, harvesting and did not follow guidelines given by Jagdish Seeds, Hansi. No notice was served by complainant to OP, during the time of inspection and District Agriculture Office did not give any information to OP, in any manner, about inspection of complainant’s crops. Report produced by complainant, if any, is false and frivolous as no inspection was made in presence of OP. There is no deficiency in services of OP.
4. Parties to this lis led evidence, oral as well as, documentary before learned District Consumer Commission.
5. After subjectively analyzing the evidence, learned District Consumer Commission-Jhajjar vide order dated 29.01.2018 has allowed the complaint. Directions has been issued to OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- per acre to complainant as compensation on account of loss suffered by him towards getting less growth of barely crop. Rs.5,500/- has been awarded to complainant, on account of litigation expenses.
6. Feeling aggrieved this appeal has been filed by OPs.
7. I have heard both parties at length. Record of learned District Consumer Commission too has been perused.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that impugned order dated 29.01.2018 is legally unsustainable. Only base of allowing the complaint is the report dated 14.08.2017 (Ex.P-8) which contain recital that there was mixing to the extent of 30-35% of seeds of different species. It is urged that this report is not prepared by competent person. It is contended that proper committee, strictly as per letter dated 03.01.2002 (Ex.R-8) has not been constituted to conduct inspection of barely crops of complainant’s field. Document Ex.R-8 has been overlooked.
9. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent/complainant has supported the impugned order dated 29.01.2018 by urging that it is outcome of proper appreciation of facts and evidence and it warrants no interference. It is urged that inspection report dated 14.03.2017 has been rightly appreciated by learned District Consumer Commission to award just compensation to complainant.
10. Ex.P-2 dated 22.02.2017 is the application filed by complainant to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Jhajjar. In this application, he has asserted that: he purchased 20 bags of barley seeds on 19.11.2016 from Bala Ji Trading Company of the variety of BH-393 at price of Rs.14,800/- (Rs.740/- per bag). He sowed these seeds in 15 acres of agriculture land, when the crop grew up, then it was not of the variety BH-393. It was of some other variety. He suffered huge loss and hence inspection of seeds be got conducted. Investigation qua loss to crop be also got conducted.
11. Ex.P-8 is the inspection report dated 14.03.2017. Phraseology of this report is to the effect that inspection of the field of Jai Bhagwan was conducted by Committee which found that growth of barely crop was irregular. Mixing of plants of other variety of barely was clearly visible. Committee arrived at conclusion that in the seeds of barely; seeds of other variety of barely was mixed to the extent of 30-35%. Learned District Consumer Commission has taken this report to the formidable base, while awarding compensation to complainant through order dated 29.01.2018.
12. In firm opinion of this Commission this approach of learned District Consumer Commission cannot be termed to be erroneous. It is legally sustainable. Reason is obvious. Perusal of inspection report Ex.P-8 reflects that inspection on 14.03.2017 was conducted by team of B.A.O., SMS(PP), Jhajjar and ADO. No doubt, as per circular issued by Director of Agriculture of Haryana dated 03.01.2002 (Ex.R-8), fields were to be inspected by committee comprising of two officer from Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned agency and scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and report has to be submitted to Deputy Director Agriculture after inspection, yet inspection of field by committee in deviation of circular Ex.R-8 cannot be termed to be an illegal act. Admittedly, inspection in present case was conducted on 14.03.2017 and committee which conducted inspection comprised of ADO, SMS(P)), Jhajjar and B.A.O. All these persons which were members of committee, were Govt. officials and expert in the field of agriculture, who have no prejudicial interest to any party to this lis. Hence, contention that inspection on 14.03.2017 had not been carried out, after due notice to representative of OP and scientist from KGK/KVK, HAU was not called does not carry any substance. Therefore, it is concluded that even if inspection on 14.03.2017 has been conducted at the back of appellants, still it will not become a reason to have departure from this report. It will still form a formidable and acceptable base. By relying upon inspection report dated 14.03.2017 and by ignoring the import flowing from letter dated 03.01.2002 Ex.R-8; the learned District Consumer Commission has not committed illegality.
13. Learned counsel for appellant has relied upon judgment dated 28.02.2014 passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as “Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Operative Ltd. & Anr. Versus Bhup Singh” 2015 SCC Online NCDRC 215 and urged that it squarely covers the controversy involved in present appeal, in which letter/circular dated 03.01.2002 (Ex.R-8 herein) has been discussed. Per contra, reliance has been placed by complainant on two judgments of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi viz. “Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. (IFFCO) versus Vijay Kumar, Revision Petition No. 912 of 2017 decided on 14.06.2018 AND Revision Petition No. 1126 of 2016 titled as “Om Parkash Versus Marketing Director, Head Office IFFCO and others” decided on 03.01.2022. It is urged that in both these judgments also the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission has discussed the legal import of order/circular dated 03.01.2002 (Ex.R-8 herein),
14. In Vijay Kumar’s case (supra); as per brief facts; District Forum had dismissed two complaints. Complainants namely: Vijay Kumar and Vinod Kumar approached State Consumer Commission, Haryana by filing separate appeals. Their appeals (No. 922 of 2016-concerning Vijay Kumar and No. 924 of 2016-concerning Vinod Kumar) were allowed by State Consumer Commission, Haryana vide order dated 23.10.2017. Two Revision Petitions (No.912 of 2018 & No. 913 of 2018) were filed before Hon’ble National Consumer Commission. Basic argument so advanced in both these revision petitions was that: despite circular dated 03.01.2002; Agriculture Department did not associate representative of seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU in inspection carried out by it on request of complainants and thus, no reliance can be placed on report prepared on the back of petitioner, without notice to it. Hon’ble National Consumer Commission by dismissing both Revisions Petitions has observed as under, in para 7 of its judgment:-
“For the reasons stated hereinabove, I see no reason not to rely upon the inspection report prepared by the three officers of the Agriculture Department who found that there was no flower and foliage in as many as 60-70% of the plant growth. As noted earlier, according to the complainants, they had taken all precautions and even ploughed the fields three times in order to get optimum yield. Even otherwise, a farmer purchases the seeds for the purpose of having adequate yield and therefore, he would naturally make best efforts to ensure that the yield does not suffer on account of any deficiency on his part. He has a vested interest in having adequate yield from the seeds sown by him in the fields. If despite all efforts made by the farmer, there is no flower and foliage in as many as 60-70% of the plants, it is obvious that there was some adulteration in the seeds. The team of the Agriculture Department also noted in this regard that there was a mixture of gwar seeds shown to it. Therefore, I see no reason to discard the report prepared by the officers of the Agriculture Department. The view taken by the State Commission therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petitions, being devoid of any merits, are therefore, dismissed.”
15. Factual scenario of genesis of case in hand is identical to above quoted observation of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission.
16. As per brief facts of Om Parkash’s case (supra) his complaint was allowed by District Consumer Forum-Sirsa which awarded him compensation. Respondent/OP challenged the order in appeal before State Consumer Commission, Haryana and said appeal was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2015 which led complainant to file Revision Petition before Hon’ble National Commission. There also, it was contended that inspection was not as per direction of Director Agriculture Haryana according to circular dated 03.01.2002. This contention has been negated by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission. It has set aside order dated 18.12.2015 passed by Haryana, State Consumer Commission and restored/reaffirmed the order dated 10.02.2015 of District Forum, Sirsa.
17. This being so, the reliance for learned counsel for the appellant on Bhup Singh case (Supra) will not enure any benefit to him. As a sequel thereto it is concluded that impugned order dated 29.01.2018 passed by District Consumer Commission Jhajjar will continue to stand, with full force, at legal pedestal. It is accordingly maintained and affirmed. Present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
18. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellant at the time of filing of this appeal be refunded to it, after due identification and verification as per rules and on expiry of period meant for further appeal /revision, if any.
19. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
20. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
21. File be consigned to record room
Date of pronouncement: 21st June, 2023
Naresh Katyal Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
