Haryana

Kurukshetra

216/2017

Gurdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kissan Sewa - Opp.Party(s)

Harnam Khubber

04 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint No.216 of 2017.

Date of instt.: 10.10.2017.       

     Date of Decision:04.12.2019.

 

Gurdev Singh son of Shri Balbir Singh, resident of village Nagla, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Kisan Sewa Centre, 9-Outside Partap Mandi Gate, Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra, through its authorized signatory.
2. Sygenta India Limited (Seeds Division), Plot No.9-1-164/a, 165, 166, 4^th Floor, Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera, near Clock Tower, opposite Sigma Hospital, Secunderabad- 500025, A.P. through its authorized signatory.

                ………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

                   Smt. Neelam, Member.

 

Present:     Shri Harnam Khuber, Advocate for the complainant.

                Shri Hardeep Singh, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

                Shri Rakesh Arora, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.     

 

ORDER

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Gurdev Singh against Kisan Sewa Centre and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased 600 gram capsicum seed of lot No.12549519 for an amount of Rs.73,596/- from OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2. That the complainant sown the said seed in five acres as per directions, specifications and instructions of the OPs. The said seed sold by OPs was not genuine and was of sub-standard, superfluous seed and misbranded, as the condition of the crop is not proper. In this way, the OPs cheated the complainant. It is further averred that ultimately the complainant approached the District Horticulture Officer, Kurukshetra who visited his field and inspected the crops and gave report that seed is of inferior quality. Hence, there is great deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint.

3.             Upon notice, opposite party No.1 contested the complaint by filing separate written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant purchased 600 grams capsicum seed from the OP No.1, who purchased the same from OP No.2 in sealed conditions and was sold to complainant in sealed condition. The quality of the seed and germination thereof depends upon numerous factors like variety of the land, moisture in the land, weather/ climate and fertile power of land etc. The complainant has procured good yield and now has filed this false and frivolous complaint, which is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further averred that application moved by complainant to DHO, Kurukshetra as well as present complaint is based on false, frivolous and baseless facts. The report as alleged is the result of collusion in between complainant and officials of Horticulture Department. If there is any complaint to the complainant, then the complainant should intimate this fact to ops in writing, but he failed to do so. Moreover, there is no other complaint from any other customer regarding non-yielding of the crops. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

                Upon notice, initially opposite party No.2 appeared, but on 16.1.2018, none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte on that date. Thereafter, the OP No.2 moved an application for joining the proceedings which was dismissed vide order dated 05.4.2018. However, the impugned order of this Forum dated 16.1.2018 was set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission, Panchkula vide its order dated 27.6.2018 by accepting the revision petition filed by the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 was allowed to join the proceedings of this complaint. Accordingly, the OP No.2 filed its separate written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that OP No.2 is a leading producer of hybrid seeds and is working in the interest of farmers across India and striving to improve overall productivity by providing superior hybrid seeds and crop protection products. It is further submitted that it takes extreme care in ensuring that the seeds produced, processed and packet by OP No.2, completely meet the prescribed standards and specifications before distribution/sale. Each lot produced, processed and packed by OP no.2 is tested by the laboratories of op no.2 for germination, percentage and genetic purity percentage of the concerned lot before releasing in the market. The complainant has submitted the report of Agriculture Officer, Kurukshetra, however, this report is not admissible against OP no.2, because no notice has been given to op no.2 regarding the inspection and that report nowhere states that the seeds manufactured and supplied by OPs were defective and that no scientific analysis has been carried out by the officers concerned for arriving at the conclusion of the report. Even the report of Agriculture Officer is silent about the quality of seeds. It is further submitted that complainant has claimed huge amount of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest as compensation for loss of crop, however, the complainant did not place on record even a single document to substantiate the loss of yield of crop for alleged amount or any document to substantiate the alleged expenses paid by him. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made. In support of its contention, the ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has placed reliance on the cases titled as M/s Janak Seeds Vs. Phool Kumar etc., First Appeal No.549 of 2017, d.o.d. 07.3.2019 decided by the Hon’ble State Commission, Panchkula; Zimidara Agro Center Vs. Sukhdev Singh & Anr., Revision Petition No.2354 of 2016, d.o.d. 31.5.2017 decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi; Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop, Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014, d.o.d. 26.11.2016 decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.CW2/A and closed the evidence. The OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased 600 gram capsicum seed from the OP No.1 and sown the same in five acres as per directions, specifications and instructions of the OPs. The said seed was not genuine and was of sub-standard, superfluous and misbranded, as the condition of the crop is not proper. He further argued that on his complaint, the officer of Agriculture visited his fields and gave their report that seed is of inferior quality. This way, the OPs are deficient in providing the services.

                Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 reiterated all the averments made in the reply. He argued that the seed sold to the complainant was in sealed conditions. The quality of the seed and germination thereof depends upon numerous factors like variety of the land, moisture in the land, weather/ climate and fertile power of land etc. He further argued that the report ‘as alleged, is the result of collusion in between complainant and officials of Horticulture Department.

                The learned counsel for the OP No.2 also reiterated all the averments made in its reply. He argued that the OP No.2 is leading producer of hybrid seeds and working in the interest of farmers across India. It takes extreme care in ensuring that the seeds produced, processed and packet by OP No.2, completely meet the prescribed standards and specifications before distribution/sale. Each lot produced, processed and packed by OP no.2 is tested by the laboratories of op no.2 for germination, percentage and genetic purity percentage of the concerned lot before releasing in the market. The complainant has not made compliance of section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The report of Agriculture Team is vague because it does not bear any khasra number etc. and the inspection has been done in its absence. In support to his contention, he placed reliance upon case laws titled M/s Janak Seeds Vs. Phool Kumar, First Appeal No.549 of 2017, d.o.d. 07.3.2019 (SC); Zimindara Agro Center Vs. Sukhdev Singh & Anr., in Revision Petition No.2354 of 2016, d.o.d. 31.5.2017 (NC) and Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop, in Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014, d.o.d. 26.11.2014 (NC).

7.             Admittedly, the complainant purchased the Capsicum seed having lot No.12549519 from the OP No.1 vide Tax Invoice Ex.C-1. In the report Ex.C-3, the Agriculture Deptt., Kurukshetra reported that in two acres land, the crop yields are normal and flowers are good, but the number of fruits is nominal/very less. They further reported that the yields of rest of three acres are normal and flowers & fruits are planted in good quality, but quality of fruits not found good. In support to his contention, the OP No.2 produced Seed Analysis Certificate as Ex.R-1 and Analysis Report as Ex.R-2 on the case file, wherein, it has been mentioned that the batch No.12549519 (purchased by the complainant) is having germination percentage of 90%, GP 99.2% with results as ‘Pass’. However, perusal of report Ex.C-3 reveals that it does not bear the khasra number of the land belonging to the complainant, on which, he allegedly sown the seeds after its purchase from the OP No.1. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any revenue record on the case file to prove his ownership on the land on which the alleged seeds were sown.

                From the internet, we have taken out “Sowing time of Capsicum”, which is as under:-

          Sowing time          -    Non.-Jan.           June-July

        Transplanting time -     Jan.-Feb.            July-Aug.

        Harvesting period        -      April-May           Sept.-Oct.

               

                In the present case, the complainant purchased the seeds in question in the month of October 2016 and made a complaint to the Agriculture Deptt. regarding inferior quality of seeds on 13.6.2017, meaning thereby, the complainant might have sown the seed in question in the end of May or in the first week of June 2017, i.e. after more than 7 months from the date of its purchase. This shows that the complainant has not followed the instructions/directions mentioned on the bag of the seed in question and by doing so, the complainant is himself at fault. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops in providing the services. The case laws produced by the OP No.2 is fully applicable to the facts of instant case.

8.             Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has not been able to prove his case against the OPs by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room.

Announced in open Forum:  

Dt.04.12.2019.                                                    (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President

 

                (Issam Singh Sagwal)         (Neelam)

                          Member                 Member