Haryana

StateCommission

A/350/2019

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

DIWAN S ADLAKHA

17 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.350 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution:15.04.2019

                                                               Date of Decision: 17.06.2022

 

1. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, Survey No.69, Kandlokoya, Gundlapochampally Village Machhall Mandal, district Ranga Reddy (Telangana), India through its authorized person Krishan Singh, Regional Manager.
2. Sagar Traders, near Jeeva Jyoti Hospital, New Grain Market, Market road, Shahabad(M), District Kurukshetra, through its proprietor Smt.Sudha Gupta widow of Late Harish Kumar Singhal.

…..Appellants

Versus

Jasbir Singh S/o Sh.Maya Ram, R/o Village Ajrani, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.D.S.Adlakha, Advocate for appellant.

                   Mr. S.S. Mor, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK,  MEMBER:

          Briefly stated, facts narrated in the complaint are that complainant purchased two bags of sunflower seed vide receipt No.6104 dated 22.02.2017 for a sum of Rs.1960/- from opposite party No.1. He also purchased one more bag of sunflower seed on the next day i.e. 23.02.2017 but no receipt was issued by the OP as old receipt book was exhausted and the fresh one was not around. He prepared the land measuring 31 kanals nine marlas for sowing the sunflower crop. As per instructions of OP No.1, the complainant sown the sunflower seeds on small mends in his field.  When the crop got ripened, it was found that some of the flowers remained small in size having less grains than the specification whereas some flowers were normal. He immediately approached OP.No.1 and complained about this development questioning the quality of seeds and requested them to visit the fields, but, they refused.  He moved an application to Deputy Director, Agricultural, Kurukshetra and a team of experts visited his fields on 19.06.2017 and after inspecting the land, prepared a report stating that “30% of the flowers were of normal size and 70% flowers were dwarf i.e. not of normal size and were also found 20% 25% less in grains/seeds than the specification.  This is how complainant suffered the loss of Rs.1,12,000/-, as OPs sold sub-standard and mixed seeds to him complainant which amounts to deficiency  in service on their part.

2.      O.Ps filed reply and submitted that inspection report only speaks that there was any loss to the crop but it no-where disclosed that there was any defect in the seed.  No prior notice was given to the OPs before inspection of the field.  There was non compliance of section 13(1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act. The proper growth of plants depend upon the various factors.  Preliminary objections about  maintainability of complaint, locus standi etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint. The complainant has not suffered any loss as alleged.   Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (In short “District Commission”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 07.03.2019,which is as under:-

“Thus, as a sequel to out above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the OPs to further pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony including litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps.-appellants have preferred this appeal.

5.      The argument were advanced by Sh.D.S.Adlakha, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh S.S.Mor, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance entire records as well as the original record of the District Commission including the evidence led on behalf of parties has also been properly perused and examined.

6.       It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the seed from the OP No.1. It is also admitted that upon complaint, a committee was constituted by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Kurukshetra. Though, there is a report prepared by the officials of the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Kurukshetra which clearly reveals that “ 30% of the flowers were of normal size and 70% flowers were of small size i.e. not of normal size and were also found to be 20%- 25% less in grains/seeds than as per the specification. The inspection report does not reveal that there were sub standard seeds.

7.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that notice must be served to the OPs before visiting the field by the expert committee.

          As per instructions, a notice was must before visiting the field.  As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Indian Farmers fertilizers co-operative Vs. Bhup Singh in revision petition No.2144 of 2014 decided on  09.04.2015 such report cannot be relied upon if notice was not issued to O.Ps. before visit.  The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-

“6.     Perusal of inspection report clearly reveals that  inspection was made by a team of B.A.O., S.M.S. (PP) and SDAO whereas, as per circular of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 03.01.2002 fields were to be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK. Admittedly, inspection was not carried out after due notice to representative of OP and Scientist was not called and admittedly, not in their presence.  In such circumstances, inspection report made by some officers of Agriculture Department cannot be acted upon and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were not of standard quality, particularly, when these seeds were certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency.  Learned District Forum and learned State Commission wrongly observed that non formation of team as per circular of director of Agriculture was not fault of the complainant.  At the time of inspection, complainant should have asked the inspecting team to intimate OP as well Scientist for carrying out inspection and as inspection has not been done by the duly constituted committee, no reliance can be placed on this inspection report and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the petitioner.

7.      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 OP is against the principles of natural justice and no reliance was placed on inspection report as it was not supplied to the OP to present his view on the report.  He also placed reliance on the judgment of this commission in R.P.No.4280 to 4282 of 2007-Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. Sreenivasa Reddy & Ors. In which it was observed as under:-

“Hon’ble Supreme court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs.Sadhu & Anr. II (2005) SLT 569=11 (2005) CPJ 13 SC=(2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs.Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2428/2008, has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is 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 a defect in the seeds was on the complainant.

8.      In the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that report obtained by the complainant without notice to OP cannot be relied upon and learned District Forum fell in error while holding deficiency in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be allowed.”

8.      In view of the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in aforesaid case law inspection report cannot be relied upon.  There is no other evidence about loss alleged to be suffered by complainant.

9.      The complainant in this case could not produce any documentary evidence regarding the amount spent for providing fertilizer, pesticides and the amount spent for cultivation of the land. Merely on the basis of statement of the complainant in his affidavit, findings cannot be given that the complainant had spent so much for preparation of his land for cultivation thereof, for providing fertilizer and pesticides etc. The complainant did not make any effort for obtaining expert report to the effect that the seeds provided to the complainant were of poor quality and deficient yield of the crop was due to sub-standard and poor quality of seeds.

10.              From the pleadings and evidence on the file it is almost clear that there was no problem regarding germination of the seeds. There could be so many reasons of less germination, low yield and poor quality of the crop. Germination as well as quality and quantity of yield depends upon the climatic conditions, nature of soil, proper irrigation and use of manure, fertilizer and pesticides.  In these circumstances findings can be given that cause of poor quality and quantity of paddy crop may not be due to quality of seeds but may be due to other reasons also, as mentioned above. On this point of controversy, a decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case Banta Ram versus Jai Bharat Beej Co. and anr., Revision Petition No.506 of 2013 decided on May 17^th, 2013, by Hon’ble National Commission also supports the version of the opposite parties.  The appellant has not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under provision of Section  13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

11.              Keeping in mind all the circumstances, findings can be safely given that the complainant failed to prove that it was a case of sub standard seed. The complainant also failed to prove that seeds supplied to the complainant were of poor quality and sub-standard or that poor quality and sub-standard of the seeds was the cause of poor sunflower seed.  Learned District Commission failed to take into consideration all these aspects.  Hence, the impugned order dated  07.03.2019 is set aside.  The appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent-Jasbir Singh against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

17th  June, 2022     Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)