BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 283 of 2017
Date of Institution : 31.10.2017
Date of Decision : 29.11.2018
Avtar Singh aged about 38 years son of Shri Achhar Singh, resident of #1260, Rania Chungi, Near Tushar Hospital, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Khushal Beej Company, Janta Bhawan Road, Opposite Anaj Mandi, Gate No.2, Siorsa, through its Proprietor Shyam Mehta.
2. Namdhari Agro Seeds, Behind Women Polytechnic, Shamshabad Patti, Sirsa, through its partners Avtar Singh and Malkeet Singh.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………….. PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.S. Gill, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that seven acres of land in the name of his mother Balwinder Kaur is situated in village Theri Baba Sawan Singh, District Sirsa and the complainant is cultivating the same since long time. The complainant also used to cultivate two acres of land of Ajay Pal son of Shri Hardayal Singh on lease basis. It is further averred that complainant purchased seed of paddy crop No.PB-1 30 Kg. alongwith other seed for Rs.3100/- vide receipt No.8752 dated 11.5.2017 from op no.1. The op no.1 is authorized dealer and op no.2 is supplier of the seed who supplied the same to op no.1. At that time, op no.1 assured that the above said seed is of very good quality and will give good result in the fields. That the complainant has sown the said seed in 9 acres of land but it could not be properly grown due to mixed seed of 1509 quality which is grown in short term. Due to this reason, the complainant has suffered loss of his nine acres crop due to mixing of seeds. That on 13.9.2017 complainant moved an application to Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa for inspecting the fields of complainant. The Quality Control Inspector and S.D.A.O, Sirsa visited the spot on 27.9.2017 and inspected the fields of complainant and found that complainant has suffered loss of crop in 9 acres of land due to mixing of seeds because in this seed some other seeds grown in short term. That loss of the crop of complainant was assessed to the tune of 25 to 30% due to falling down of crop and they also assessed the loss of remaining crop as it will be sold at low price due to poor quality of the crop. The report was issued to the complainant by Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa vide memo No.7998 dated 6.10.2017. That the complainant has suffered loss of 10 quintal per acres, the costs of which comes to Rs.30,000/- per acre and total loss comes to Rs.2,70,000/-. It is further averred that complainant approached and requested the ops to admit his claim to pay him suitable compensation but all in vain and the ops after postponing the matter with one pretext or the other have finally refused to admit his claim. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply raising several preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant is guilty of not disclosing the factual position before this Forum. The answering op no.2 being manufacturer of the paddy seed PB-1 sold out more than 300 quintals of seeds with the same variety distributed in all over District Sirsa to the different farmers as well as shopkeepers. Similarly, op no.1 purchased three quintals seeds PB-1 from the answering op no.2. The seeds duly manufactured by op no.2 is under proper certification of Haryana State Seed Certifying Agency duly undertaken by the Govt. The complainant purchased 30 Kg. of seed. He failed to follow the specification, guidelines instructed to him at the time of purchasing the same. Moreover, as per guidelines issued by CCS HAU Hisar, the complainant being a farmer is fully aware that as per the guidelines issued by the University, particularly in regard to variety PB-1 for getting good crop, minimum 8 Kg. seeds per acre is minimum requirement. The complainant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement for getting a fruitful crop of variety PB-1. It is further submitted that complainant has failed to disclose the killa numbers and detail of land wherein he has sown the paddy seed. Moreover, from the perusal of the application dated 13.9.2017 and the alleged report dated 27.9.2017, it is well established that the complainant had obtained the alleged report of DDA in the absence of answering ops. No where the intimation of visit of DDA and officials was given to the answering ops nor they were called for an opportunity of hearing, which is against the natural justice and proceedings initiated by the complainant and DDA are absolutely void in the eyes of law. The complainant has also failed to prove the authentication of the seeds by way of producing the used bags, label and other supporting items to prove that the purchased seeds was sown in his field, so an adverse inference can easily be drawn against the complainant that he had manipulated the report in his favour with a motive to unnecessary harass, humiliate the answering ops. Even in the alleged report dated 27.9.2017 prepared by the DDA, no where the authentication of the seeds duly manufactured by answering op no.2 has been proved. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, estimate Ex.C2, copy of application Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 6.10.2017 Ex.C4, copy of inspection report Ex.C5, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C6 and copies of mutation Ex.C7 and Ex.C8. On the other hand, ops have produced affidavit of Sh. Sham Mehta, proprietor of op no.1 Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Narayan Singh, proprietor of op no.2 Ex.RW2/A, copies of certificate Ex.R1 to Ex.R4, copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.R5, copy of stock ledger Ex.R6 and affidavits of Sh. Deva Singh, Sh. Balak Singh, Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Sh. Jangir Singh, Sh. Alam Singh and Sh. Baljit Singh as Ex.RW3/A to Ex.RW8/A.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of complainant that complainant had purchased 30 Kgs. of seed of paddy crop quality PB-1 alongwith other seed from opposite party no.1 which was manufactured by opposite party no.2 on payment of Rs.3100/- on 11.5.2017 vide receipt No.8752. He has further contended that the seed was sown in nine acres of land in village Theri Baba Sawan Singh out of which he had taken two acres of land on lease from Ajay Pal son of Shri Hardayal Singh resident of Their Baba Sawan Singh. The seed could not properly grow due to mixed seed of 1509 quality which is grown in short term and complainant has suffered a loss of nine acres of crop due to mixing of the seed. He moved an application before Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa for inspection of the field. The Quality Control Inspector and S.D.A.O, Sirsa visited the spot on 27.9.2017 and inspected the fields of the complainant and found that complainant has suffered crop in nine acres of land due to mixing of seeds. The loss of crop of complainant was assessed to the tune of 25 to 30% due to falling down of the crop and they also assessed the loss of remaining crop as it will be sold at low price due to lower quality. The report of Agriculture Department has been duly proved and complainant is entitled for compensation prayed for. Ld. counsel for complainant has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Malda @ Mal Krishan, 2015 (4) CPJ 54 and also relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in case titled as Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat Ram & Ors. 2014 (1) CLT 623.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has strongly contended that complainant has miserably failed to prove his complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence. He has not mentioned killa numbers in his complaint nor same has been mentioned by officers of agriculture department who allegedly inspected the spot in the absence of ops no.1 and 2. He has also contended that seeds of paddy which was sold to the complainant by op no.1 manufactured by op no.2 was of high quality and it was duly certified by concerned authority and this fact also finds corroboration from the affidavits of certain farmers which are Ex.RW3/A to Ex.RW8/A. They have specifically deposed that seed manufactured by Namdhari Agro Seeds are of high quality and they always give high yield and their crop remain at top in their villages. Ld. counsel for ops has further contended that there are certain other reasons for less growth of the paddy crop which includes quality of the land, environment, source of irrigation etc. and further he has contended that as per opinion of Researcher of Chaudhary Charan Singh Agriculture University, Hisar, 8 Kgs. seed is required for one acre of land in case of Pusa Basmati-1 and then average yield of paddy remains between 18 quintals to 24 quintals per acre and the complainant has not complied with all the norms as laid down by the researcher of the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar and he himself is liable to suffer due to his omission and commission. The ops cannot be held liable for loss, if any suffered by the complainant.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record.
8. It is an admitted fact on record that complainant purchased 30 Kgs. of seed of paddy crop quality PB-1 from opposite party no.2 which was manufactured by op no.2 on payment of Rs.3100/- on 11.5.2017. The complainant had sown the paddy seed in his field measuring nine acres out of which seven acres belongs to his mother Smt. Balwinder Kaur and he had taken two acres of land on lease from one Ajay Pal Singh. The complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint. He has specifically deposed that seeds supplied by op no.1 was of mixed quality and as a result of which he had made complaint to the Deputy Director of Agriculture department, Sirsa who deputed the Quality Control Inspector and S.D.A.O. Sirsa to visit and inspect the field of complainant. Consequently, they visited and inspected the field and submitted their detailed report which is Ex.C5 on the file.
9. The perusal of the report Ex.C5 reveals that the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer and Quality Control Inspector, Sirsa have reported that on inspection of the field of complainant, it was found that farmer had sown paddy crop in nine acres of land and in nine acres of land, about 25 to 30% plants were of other quality which are grown in short term and these plants were properly developed whereas plants of other main quality PB-1 were still green. In this way, due to mixed quality of seed, there was loss of yield and quality of crop and there was possibility of financial loss due to mixed quality in the crop and the loss was due to mixing quality of the seed in main quality of PB-1. As per this report, the complainant has suffered the loss of 25 to 30% in his yield due to mixing quality of the seed of paddy and further more the observation has been given by experts of the agriculture department that less crop is due to mixing of the seed as a result of which complainant has suffered loss in nine acres of land.
10. Though, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 has raised objection that no intimation was given to ops to join the inspection proceeding by agriculture authorities which prejudices the rights of the ops. No doubt, complainant has not placed on record any letter written by agriculture authorities to the ops before visiting and inspecting the spot, but this alone plea of ops is not sufficient to disentitle the complainant from compensation of loss suffered by him. We find force from the judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana in case titled as Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat Ram & others (supra) in which it was observed that “ Effect of non-joining seed dealer in field inspection- It was found that the seed supplied to him was defective having been mixed with some other variety and seed not pure- Plea of op that the seed supplied was tested and passed by the Seed Certification Agency and field not inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana- Held that it was the duty of the officials of Agriculture Department to get the field inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana- It was for the Deputy Director Agriculture to constitute a team, which he constituted comprising of three agriculture officers- The team not being constituted as per the letter of the Director of Agriculture and not associating the dealer of the seed, was not the fault of the farmer because he was not supposed to be aware that the representative of the company was to be associated in the team. It was for the officials of agriculture department to call the representatives of the company. It was not the fault of the farmer at all, for which he should not be allowed to suffer.” We further find force from the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. Malda @ Mal Krishan (supra) in which it was observed that “Sale of defective paddy seeds- Complainant purchased 30 Kgs of paddy seeds of Govind brand from National Seeds Corporation Ltd.- Seeds were planted in 6 acres of land- Seeds of paddy were of mixed variety and grown out of poor quality- Complainant discharged his onus to prove that seeds were of defective quality- It was duty of petitioner, a national level body to discharge their part of onus to prove that seeds of particular variety in question were free from defects as alleged by complainant- Allegation of mixing of other varieties of seeds has been confirmed in report of expert committee and petitioner has not been able to controvert the same- Order granting compensation of Rs.1 lakh to complainant proper- Revision Petition dismissed.
11. Though, the ops no.1 and 2 have placed on record certain affidavits of different farmers Ex.RW3/A to Ex.,RW8/A who have deposed that seed of Namdhari Agro Seeds company are of high quality and they always give good yield and their crop was at top in their villages. The perusal of these affidavits reveals that contents of all the affidavits are same only the name of the deponents and their addresses have been changed and it appears that these affidavits have been got executed by ops in order to create evidence in their favour. But these affidavits cannot be made the basis of disentitling the complainant from getting compensation for the loss which he has suffered due to mixing quality of the seed, since the complainant has relied upon the report of agriculture department which has been submitted by experts of the agriculture department who inspected the field of complainant and made their detailed report qua mixing of the seed and suffering of loss to the tune of 25% to 30% by complainant in getting his yield. So, it appears that complainant has proved his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence and proved fact that seed supplied by ops was of mixed quality and by sowing that complainant has suffered loss to the tune of 25 to 30% and deserves to be entitled for compensation.
12. In view of the above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre i.e.total Rs.90,000/- for nine acres to the complainant for the loss of crop and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses 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 @7% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.90,000/- from the date of order till actual realization. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Dated:29.11.2018.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
