Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/729/2013

Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh.Faggu Ram, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kisan Khad Store, - Opp.Party(s)

Hitesh Gambhir

29 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT AJGADHRI.

 

                                                          Complaint No.729 of 2013.

                                                          Date of Institution:1.10.2013.

                                                          Date of Decision:29.9.2017.

                                   

Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh.Faggu Ram, aged 30 years, r/o village & P.O. Bakkarwala, tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                           

                                                                                               …Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1.       Kisan Khad Store, 481-L, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

2.       TATA Rallis India Ltd. 156-157, Nariman Bhawan 15^th floor, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 through its Managing Director/authorized person.

…Respondents.

 

                                      Complaint under section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH.SATPAL………..PRESIDENT,

                   SH.S.C.SHARMA,        MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh.Hitesh Gambhir, Adv. for complainant.

              Sh.M.C.Gupta, Adv. for Ops.

 

ORDER:     (SH.STAPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.                The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as Ops).

2.                Brief facts of the complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant had purchased three bags of TATA RIL-30 Paddy Seeds for Rs.1950/- duly paid by the complainant vide invoice No.5955, dated 23.5.2013.  At the time of purchase of said seed it was assured by the Op No.1 that the seeds are of Hybrid/best quality and will give yield of 40quintals per acre.  Besides this the complainant also purchased paddy seeds of Arize-6129 and Theli VNR-2355 from the OP No.1, however the present complaint is qua RIL-30.  The complainant sowed the said seeds for growing nursery in his agriculture land in a very proper manner and used good pesticides and fertilizer for germination/growing the paddy nursery (paneri) but to the utter dismay of the complainant, the seeds did not germinate properly and growth was very less.  Finding that seeds are not germinating/growing properly for nursery even as per representation and assurance of the OP No.1 the complainant contacted the OP No.1 and lodged his complaint but he OP No.1 did not pay any heed and flatly refused to compensate the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant moved an application on 28.6.2013 before the Deputy Director, Agriculture Yamuna to inspect the fields of the complainant.  The team of Agriculture Department inspected the fields on 1.7.2013 and reported that only 10 to 15% of the seeds were germinated and the rest of seeds did not grow which shows that the paddy seeds were not of pure quality.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the Op No.1 with the above said report and requested him to compensate the complainant but the OP No.1 did not adhere to the genuine request of the complainant.  On 10.7.2013 the complainant purchased the nursery (paniri) for 3 acres land from Jagbir Singh son of Sh.Joginder Singh r/o VPO Bakkarwala, Distt. Yamuna Nagar for an amount of Rs.15,000/- at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre.  There is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the OP No.1 to pay the cost of seeds and Rs.15,000/- towards purchase of paddy nursery from other farmer with interest @18% p.a. and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and Rs.11,000/- as cost of proceedings. 

3.                Upon notice the Ops appeared and filed their written statements separately.  The Op No.1 while filing the written statement took some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the report of inspecting team is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the said team prior to inspection of land neither gave any notice to Op No.2 nor to the answering OP and has also not mentioned any killa number of the land.  Even the Halqa Patwari was not summoned at the spot.  Thus the said report does not pin point the identity of land of complainant; the complainant has not produced the sample before this Hon’ble Forum for getting it analysed from the laboratory in terms of requirement of section 13 (1 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, which is mandatory in nature; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; there is no cause of action against the answering OP; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  The true facts are that the Op No.2 is reputed company and is supplying the seeds in All over India and answering OP is selling the said seeds; the complainant has not sown the proper seeds and has not taken proper care of the land as per instructions of answering OP; the answering OP has sold the seeds RIL-30 but no complaint has been received from any corner till today except the present complaint;  the complainant has filed the present complaint by taking false pleas by stating that the said seeds have not been germinated properly and he has suffered loss whereas he himself remain failed to comply with the instructions given on the bag of the seeds.  On merits, the OP No.1 controverted the pleas taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and it has been averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Op and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                The Op No.2 while filing the written statement took some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the report of inspecting team is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the said team prior to inspection of land neither gave any notice to Op No.1 nor to the answering OP and has also not mentioned any killa number of the land.  Even the Halqa Patwari was not summoned at the spot.  Thus the said report does not pin point the identity of land of complainant; the complainant has not produced the sample before this Hon’ble Forum for getting it analysed from the laboratory in terms of requirement of section 13 (1 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, which is mandatory in nature; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; there is no cause of action against the answering OP; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  The true facts are that the answering OP is reputed company and is supplying the seeds in All over India; the complainant has not sown the proper seeds and has not taken proper care of the land as per instructions of answering OP; the answering OP has sold the seeds RIL-30 but no complaint has been received from any corner till today except the present complaint;  the complainant has filed the present complaint by taking false pleas by stating that the said seeds have not germinated properly and he has suffered loss whereas he himself failed to comply with the instructions given on the bag of the seeds.  On merits, the pleas taken by the complainant have been controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections.  Further there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Op and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.                To prove the case the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of one Shri Jagbir Singh and complainant as annexure CA & C.B, documents such as receipt of Rs.15,000/- as annexure C.1, copy of bill dated 23.5.2013 as annexure C.2, copy of report of inspecting team as annexure C.3, copy of application as annexure C.4, copies of Jamabandi as well as Khasra Girdawari as annexure C.5 to C.8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                The counsel for Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Surjit Singh, Prop. Kisan Khad Store as annexure R.A and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.  The counsel for the complainant reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.                On the other hand the learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the stand taken in their written statements and draw the attention of this Forum towards authority II (2013) CPJ 617 (NC) titled as Banta Ram vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company & Anr, it has been held that, “Low germination may perhaps be due to reasons totally external to quality of seeds-Petitioner had not got the seed tested from any laboratory as required under provisions of Section 13(1)(c ) of Act 1986-He had also not moved application before concerned authorities for getting the seed of same batch number tested from any laboratory-Report of Agriculture Department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection-Inferiority quality of seeds not proved”.  Further draw the attention of this Forum towards authority 2007(2) CLT P.683, Haryana State Commission, Panchkula titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and others held that, “Killa numbers and Khasra Numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Development Officer has not been mentioned in the report-Thus the report does not pin point the identity of the land of the complainant-For that reason this report cannot  be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant-The complainant failed to adduce any evidence on record to establish that he had used adequate quality of herbicide as per the instructions-At no stage the complainant had produced the sample before the District Forum for getting it analysed in terms of the requirements of Section 13 (1)  (c ) of the Act.  Further draw the attention of this Forum towards authority IV (2013) CPJ P.186 (NC) titled as Shamsher Singh vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar & anr held that,” when there is complaint by farmers regarding quality of seeds, inspection committee has to be constituted, comprising two officials of Agricultural Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kendra-Said instruction had not been followed by Agricultural Department while giving their report-Factum of complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality seeds has not been established by any scientific or other evidence-No illegality or irregularity in impugned order”. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9.                After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear that the complainant had purchased the paddy seeds of TATA RIL-30 variety from the Op No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 vide bill no.5955, dated 23.5.2013 for Rs.1950/-.  This fact is also clear that when the paddy seeds had not grown up the complainant contacted the Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar and moved an application for inspecting the nursery of paddy of the complainant upon which a team comprising of Sub Divsiinal Officer, Agriculture, Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Yamuna Nagar, Agriculture Development Officer, Devdhar was constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture and the said team after inspecting the field of the complainant submitted their report on 1.7.2013, the operative of part of which reads as under: “During inspection they found that the germination of nursery of paddy is only 10-15% which caused financial loss to the farmer”.  

The Ops have taken the following pleas in their favour;

i)       That the said report of the team does not contain Killa/Khasra Numbers

ii)      That the said team did not associate the Halqa Patwari as also the representative of the Ops during the inspection of the fields.

iii)     That the complainant did not get the sample of the seed tested from any authorized laboratory in support of his version.

                    Firstly, regarding the plea mentioned as sr.no.1 it is mentioned here that the non mentioning of Killa/Khasra numbers does not invalidate or falsify the report of the said team as the identity of the land is well established in view of the fact that the complainant had purchased seeds of three different varieties from the shop of OP No.1 and sown the same in his fields and he had got inspected the field and raised the objections with regard to quality of the seeds only in respect of TATA RIL-125 variety of paddy seeds.  The inspecting team had inspected the fields of the complainant only where nursery of RIL-125 variety was sown and not any other variety. The bonafides of the complainant is established from the fact that he had raised the objection only in respect of TATA RIL-125 variety of paddy seeds, whereas he had purchased seeds of ARIZE-6129, TheliVN2355 also vide bill No.5955, dated 23.5.2013 (annexure C.2),  Moreover, no allegations of any biasness has been pointed out or levelled against the members of the team.  Even otherwise there is no reason/justification for this Forum to ignore or discard the report of the said team.

                   Secondly, the plea of the Ops regarding non association of the Halqa Patwari/representative of the OP during inspection is also not tenable in view of the fact that there is no dispute about the identity of the land where the nursery of Paddy seeds RIL-125 was sown.

                   Thirdly, the plea of the Ops that the complainant should have get the seeds analysed/tested from any lab is also not tenable because the farmers like the complainant purchase the seeds in a small quantity and does not retain the sample of the purchased seeds with them for further testing by the lab.  This fact is also well known that the farmers are not so literate and reside in rural areas away from the towns and thus are not expected to retain the sample of seeds out of the purchased seeds for the purposes of testing from any lab so as to enable them to file the complaint in the Consumer Forum at the later stage.  At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that even the Ops have not placed on record any certified report of the sample of seeds of any authorized lab, so mere pleading is not sufficient to prove their version and the version of the complainant is un-rebutted, hence, the defect in the seeds is proved and the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is found, hence, the complainant entitled for relief.

10.              The preposition of law laid down by Hon’ble National Commssion in the case reported in 2014(2) CPJ 703:2014(3) CPR 78:2014(3)CLT 186 (NC) titled as M/s Dharam Pal & Sons & another vs. Som Prakash, in which it has been held that,” Section 23A-officers of Agriculture department inspected the fields and submitted their report-Compliant accepted on the basis of report of Agriculture department-Plea of OP that seeds not got tested from the laboratory nor seeds sent to Seed Analyst for analysis-Plea not tenable-Held-As per the report, it is clear that the complainant had suffered loss in his paddy crop, to the extent of 50% , on account of substandard quality of seed sold to him by the Ops-There is nothing to label it as any ill-will by the members of the joint inspection team and the seller of the seed-Revision petition dismissed”.  Further the Hon’ble National Commission laid down a law reported in 2015(2) CLT P.94 (NC) titled as Doctor Seeds Private Limited vs. Ramesh Chand Thakur, held that Defective seed-Seeds Rules imposes the duty on the seller of seeds to keep sample of seeds, for a period of 3 years-Complainant, who has got only a small quantity of seeds is not supposed to keep a sample of the same-Despite of notice by complainant seller failed to preserve the sample of seeds-Held-Even in the absence of the expert, the Commission was to see, whether there are materials on the record which can prove the case of complainant-Revision Petition dismissed”. The Hon’ble Punjab State Commission also laid down law in case reported in 2012 (4) CLT 644(Pb.) titled as Rai Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Vs. Diwan Chand & ors.  it has been held that, “Sections 6,7,8 and 9-Seeds-cotton seeds-Defective seeds-The appellant manufacturer of seeds produced no evidence that before selling the seeds in dispute the same were certified from the certification agency or from the Central Seed Certification Board as required u/s 6,7,8 and 9 of the Act 1966-Even no certificate is produced by the appellant to prove that the Seed in dispute before selling in the market were got analysed from the appropriate laboratory-By not producing the certification as well as the analysis report of the seeds in dispute of any recognized laboratory, it cannot be presumed that the seeds in dispute were not of inferior quality-Appellant as well as respondent No.2 nowhere pleaded or produced any evidence that the seeds in dispute were got tested from the certification agency or from the Central Seed Certification Board as required as per Section 6,7,8 and 9 of the Act, 1966-It is proved beyond any doubt that the seeds in dispute sold to respondent no.1 were of sub-standard quality and respondent no.1’s suffered loss due to defective quality of the seeds in dispute-Order of the District Forum allowing the appeal upheld”.  Further law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, in case titled as Rajinder Singh vs. Hariali Kissan Bajar reported in 2015(2) CLT 556 wherein it was held as under: “Defective seeds-From analysis of evidence on record and pleadings of the parties-Held, that the farmer cannot be expected to retain any part of highly valued seed to get it tested in case of unforeseen contingency by authorized dealer or manufacturer-OP being the seed producer would always have some quantity of seeds left with them and which they could have got tested from the laboratory-Therefore, it is their failure to perform, which has to be held against them”. Whereas the authorities (supra) tendered by the Ops are not disputed but not identical to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

11.              Regarding relief, the complainant has tendered into evidence as annexure C.A of Shri Jagbir Singh s/o Sh.Joginder Singh from whom the complainant has allegedly purchased the nursery on the payment of Rs.15,000/-, which seems to be on higher side.  In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it would meet the ends of justice if complainant is granted relief to the extent of Rs.3000/- per acre totaling Rs.9,000/- on account of purchase of nursery.

12.              Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant by directing the Ops to pay Rs.9,000/- as spent by the complainant for purchase of paddy nursery along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.  Order be complied within one month from the date of preparation of this order failing which the complainant will be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced in open Court:29.9.2017.

                                                                             (SATPAL)

                                                                             PRESIDENT.

 

      VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                   (S.C.SHARMA)

       MEMBER                                                  MEMBER.