Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/250/2019

Amarjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Khalsa Seeds - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.Mehla

26 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFOR THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    250 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         18.06.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 26.07.2022

 

Amarjit s/o Shri Kehar Singh, aged about 50 years, r/o VPO Saran, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. M/s Khalsa Seed Store, Radaur Road, Ladwa, Kurukshetra, through its Prop.
2. M/s Star Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.D-38, 2^nd Floor, D-Block Bharani Complex, Minister Road, Sikandrabad, Hyderabad-500003.

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Anil Kumar Mehla, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that on 30.03.2019, the complainant purchased the maize seeds (makka) from OP No.1 i.e. 16 bags amounting Rs.1425/- per bag, total Rs.22800/- vide bill/cash memo No.4499 dated 30.03.2019. He sown the said seed in 8 acres of land, but when after expiry of long period, the seed did not grow properly, he moved an application to the Haryana Agriculture Department at Jagadhri in this regard and on 15.5.2019, a team of Agriculture Farmer Welfare Department examined the maize crop and found that the seeds were grown less than 40-50% in 2 acres land and 20-25% in 6 acres land and issued a report in this regard. He showed the said inspection report to OP No.1 and requested to pay the compensation amount to him, but they failed to redress his grievance. The above act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss as well, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections regarding locus-standi; non-maintainability u/s 13(1)(c) of CP Act; jurisdiction. It is further stated that the complainant purchased 16 bags of maize seed from OP No.1 and seed was of the best quality. The OPs are dealing in the sale of best quality seed. There was no fault or imperfection in the said seed. There is no complaint from any farmer except the present complainant. The quality of maize seed and germination thereof depends upon number of facts like land, moisture in land, weather, fertile power etc. OP No.1 received the said maize seed against the bill from OP No.2 in a sealed condition and sold the same in sealed condition. The said product is upto the standard specification and there is no fault or imperfection in it. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against them.

4.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, OPs tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the case file carefully.

7.                At the outset, learned counsel for OPs has raised the objection that the complainant had not complied with the provisions of Section 13 (1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, which is mandatory in nature, as such, the present complaint is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed on this very score. It is pertinent to mention here that in the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds, purchased by him, for the purpose of sowing, and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed, because the seeds, purchased by him, were of defective quality, and nothing remains with him, which could be tested in a laboratory. So, the contention of OPs regarding compliance of the provision of section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has no force, hence rejected. In this context, we can rely upon the case law titled M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and anr., 2012(1) ACJ 265 (SC), wherein, it is held that "The complainant purchased 5 kgs of bitter gourd seeds under Ex.A-1 and sowed the seeds in an extent of 3 acres in his land. He sowed the entire seeds purchased by him. At the time of sowing, he might not have known that he had to keep back some seeds out of the seeds purchased by him as sample in the event of his approaching Forum if the seed crop was ultimately rejected by NSC. As all the seeds were sowed, he could not have taken out any seeds from the soil and produce them before the District Forum for following the procedure contemplated under Section 13(1) of C.P. Act. In those circumstances, the sample of seeds could not be sent to the appropriate Laboratory for analysis as contemplated under Section 13 of C.P. Act by the District Forum."

8.                Now coming on the merits of the case.      

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 30.03.2019, the complainant purchased the maize seeds (makka) from OP No.1 i.e. 16 bags and sown the same in 8 acres of land, but the seed did not grow properly. The complainant moved an application to the Haryana Agriculture Department at Jagadhri in this regard and on 15.5.2019, who examined the maize crop and found that the seeds were grown less than 40-50% in 2 acres land and 20-25% in 6 acres land and issued a report in this regard. The complainant showed the said inspection report to OP No.1 and requested to pay the compensation amount to him, but they failed to redress his grievance.

10.              The learned counsel for OPs has argued that the complainant purchased 16 bags of maize seed from OP No.1 and seed was of the best quality. The OPs are dealing in the sale of best quality seed. There was no fault or imperfection in the said seed. There is no complaint from any farmer except the present complainant. The quality of maize seed and germination thereof depends upon number of facts like land, moisture in land, weather, fertile power etc. OP No.1 received the said maize seed against the bill from OP No.2 in a sealed condition and sold the same in sealed condition. He further argued that the complainant produced photographs on the case file, but it is not clear from these photographs to which farm/land it belongs to. Neither the agriculture deptt. nor the complainant issued any notice to the OPs before inspection of the field of the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against them. To support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case laws titled Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and another, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 138 (SC); Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babu Ram, 2005 (2) C.P.J. 94 (NC); Narsinhbhai Kuberdas Patel and Ors. Vs. Rhone Pulenc Agro Chemicals and Ors., 2005 (2) C.P.J. 550 (Gujarat State Commission, Ahmedabad) and M/s Treaty Constructin & Anr. Vs. M/s Ruby Tower Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd., 2019 (4) Cal. H.C.N. 263 (SC).

11.              There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant purchased 16 bags of 4 kgs each maize seed from OP No.1 on 30.03.2019, vide Bill Ex.C-1.

12.              The grievance of the complainant is that he sown the said seed in 8 acres of land, but the seed did not grow properly and in this regard, he moved an application to the Haryana Agriculture Department/OP No.1 in this regard Ex.C5, upon which, on 15.05.2019, a team of Agriculture Farmer Welfare Department examined the maize crop and issued a report in this regard Ex.C-8. He showed the said inspection report to OPs and requested to pay the compensation, but all in vain. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has contended that the seeds sold to the complainant were of the best quality. There was no fault or imperfection in the said seed. There is no complaint from any farmer except the present complainant. Neither the agriculture deptt. nor the complainant issued any notice to the OPs before inspection of the field of the complainant.           

13.              To support his contentions, complainant has placed on record copy of Inspection Report of Agriculture Department as Ex.C-8, wherein, it is reported by the inspection committee that “the seed accumulation is less/low, the seeds were grown less than 40% to 50% in 2 acres land, and 20% to 25% in 6 acres land, due to which, there is a possibility of economic loss to the farmer concerned. These contents of this report Ex.C-8 clearly indicates that the seed purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 was not of good quality and there was a mixing in the seed in question.

14.              The OPs contended that neither the agriculture deptt. nor the complainant issued any notice to the OPs before inspection of the field of the complainant, as such, report of agriculture department could not be believed, but this contention of OPs has no force, because on 07.05.2019, the complainant moved an application Ex.C-5 to the Deputy Director Haryana Agriculture Department at Jagadhri as well as to OP No.1 regarding inspection of his field, upon which, on 15.05.2019, a team of Agriculture Farmer Welfare Department examined the fields of the complainant.

15.              To support his contentions that OP No.1 produced Bill of Supply Ex.R-2, vide which, he purchased Hyd. Maize Seed – Fauji- 313 Batch No.19313005 and Hyd. Maize Seed Star-X5 Batch No.18920005 (seed in question) from OP No.2. OP No.2 further produced Quality Certificate issued by OP No.2 as Ex.R-3, wherein it is mentioned that “the Hybrid Maize Star X-5 Lot No.18920005-95% has been tested in their lab as per standard”. OP No.1 also produced affidavits of various farmers of District Kurukshetra and Karnal as Ex.R-6 to Ex.R-10, whereby they sworned that “they purchased Maize seed Star-5 from OP No.1 and sown the same in their fields and its germination was good”. OP No.1 also produced bills of that farmers as Ex.R-11 to Ex.R-14 respectively on the case file. However, from perusal of bill dated 30.03.2019 Ex.C-1 (whereby the complainant had purchased 16 bags each of 4 kgs maize seeds for a total consideration of Rs.22,800/- from OP No.1), we found that OP No.1 had not mentioned any Batch Number of that seed in that bill. Being seller of the seed, it was must required for OP No.1 to mention the batch number of the seed in the bill, whereas, on the other hand, in the Bill Ex.R-2 (vide which OP No.1 purchased the seed in question from OP No.2) as well as in the bills Ex.R-11 to Ex.R-14 (which was produced by OP No.1 to support his contention that the maize seed Star X-5, sold to the complainant, was of good quality), there is mentioned the Batch Number/Lot number of that seed. So, OP No.1 had sold the maize seed to the complainant, without mentioning its batch number/lot number, in the bill Ex.C-1. Thus, it cannot be said that whether the OP No.1 had sold the original seed of the company i.e. OP No.2, to the complainant or not. Moreover, without batch number/lot number, the quality of seed comes under suspicion. From the Bill of Supply Ex.R-2, it is clear that OP No.2 had sold the seed in question to OP No.1 while mentioning its Batch Number/Lot Number, but OP No.1 sold the same to the complainant without mentioning any Batch Number/Lot Number, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. From the Bill of Supply Ex.R-2, it is clear that OP No.1 had purchased the seed of Hybrid Maize Star X-5 from OP No.2, which was of inferior/mixed quality, due to which, the complainant had suffered the loss of due to less yield, as is evident from Inspection Report Ex.C-8, as such, OP No.2 is also deficient in services while selling the inferior/mixed quality of seeds to OP No.1. So, both the OPs are liable to pay the losses suffered by the complainant for fewer yield due to inferior quality of seed sold by it. The case laws produced by the OPs are not disputed, but the same are not helpful to the case of the OPs, being rested on different footings.

16.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? In the complaint, complainant alleged that he sown the seed in question in 8 acres of land and in this regard, he produced copy of Jamabandhi for the year 2014-15 Ex.C-2, wherein, land measuring 56.13 was owned by Jagdeep Singh s/o Shri Amarjit Singh (complainant in the present case). Moreover, complainant also produced Undertaking made by Namberdar and Sarpanch of his village Saran, wherein, it is certified that complainant is resident of village Saran and residing there in joint family with his three brothers. It is further certified that they have their ancestral land of 8-10 acres, which were cultivated by the complainant by the complainant Amarjit. So, from above, there is clear that the complainant was cultivating 8 acres of land. In the report Ex.C-8 issued by Agriculture Department, it is mentioned that the seeds were grown less than 40-50% in 2 acres land and 20-25% in 6 acres land. For the price of maize in the State of Haryana in the year 2019, we have taken out from the Internet “Agricultural Prices in India 2019” and marked the same as Mark-A and at page No.39 of 181, the average price of Maize in the State of Haryana for year 2019 was Rs.2250/- per quintal (for short “Qtl.”) in the month of August. For the average yield, we have taken out “Normal Estimates of Area, Production and Yield of Selected Principal Crops May 2021” and marked the same as Mark-B and as per its page No.11 of 58, the average production and yield of Maize for 2015-16 to 2019-20, in the State of Haryana was Rs.2962 kgs per hectare.

                   2962 kgs/100 = 29.62 Qtl. per hectare

                   1 hectare = 2.47 acres.

                   29.62/2.47 = 12 Qtl. per acre.  

                  

17.              So, now average yield/production of Maize for the year 2019 in the State of Haryana was 12 Qtl. per acre and rate was Rs.2250/- per quintal. Since as per above Inspection Report Ex.C-8, the seeds were grown less than 40-50% in 2 acres land and 20-25% in 6 acres land, as such, the claim amount for 8 acres of land of complainant, is calculated as under:-

• For 2 acres where 40% to 50% less yield :-

Average yield of Maize per acre     =          12 Qtl.

As such, for 2 acres yield             =  12x45% = 5.4 Qtl. x 2 acres = 10.8 Qtl.

Rate per quintal                            = Rs.2250/-

Rs.2250/- x 10.8 Qtl.                    = Rs.24,300/-

 

• For 6 acres where 20% to 25% less yield :-

Average yield of Maize per acre  = 12 Qtl.

As such, for 6 acres yield            =12 x 22.5% loss=2.7 Qtl. x 6 acres = 16.2 Qtl.

Rate per quintal                           = Rs.2250/-

Rs.2250/- x 16.2 Qtl.                   = Rs.36,450/-

 

Grand Total comes to       =   Rs.24,300 + 36,450 = Rs.60,750/-

 

18.              So, in view of above calculation, the complainant is entitled to receive the total claim amount of Rs.60,750/-, from both the OPs, for the loss suffered by him in 8 acres of land due to inferior/mixed quality of seed sold by the OPs. For their act of deficiency in service, complainant is also entitled to receive the compensation amount along with litigations expenses from the OPs.

19.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against the OPs, and direct them jointly and severally to make the payment of Rs.60,750/-, to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services on their part along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award amount of Rs.60,750/- shall carry on interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization and the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the records, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:26.07.2022.

    

 

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                 DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.