Haryana

Karnal

432/2013

Jai Bhagwan S/o Jitan Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

krishi Beej And Pesticides - Opp.Party(s)

S.R. Chauhan

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint no.432 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt. 17.10.2013

                                                               Date of Decision 28.10.2016

 

Jai Bhagwan son of Shri Jitan Ram resident of village Subhri Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                             …………..Complainant.      

                                                Versus

1. Krishi Beej and Pesticdes,22, Mahila Ashram Road, behind Bus Stand, Karnal through its owner.

2. Indri Seeds, near college Road, Naya Bazar, Indri District Karnal through its Director/ Owner/ Proprietor.                                                

…………Opposite parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                     Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

 Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh. S.R. Chauhan Advocate for complainant.

  Sh. Virender Sachdeva Advocate for opposite party no.1.

  Sh. Vipin Swami Advocate for opposite party no.2.

 

ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased five bags of 10 kilograms each of PR-114 paddy seed manufactured by opposite party no.2, from opposite party no.1, vide invoice no.5891 dated 17.5.2013. The said seed was sown by him with the help of “Zero Drill Machine” in 5 acres of land as per the norms and instructions of the opposite parties as well as of Government Agency. He spent an amount of more than Rs.20,000/-per acre on labour, seed, drilling, pesticides and fertilizers etc. When the paddy crop was ready to come out, it was found that half of the crop was ready whereas the half had not come out. He complained to opposite party no.1, but the matter was postponed on one pretext or the other. On 6.9.2013, he moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal, who constituted a Technical Committee. His fields were inspected by the Technical Committee on 11.9.2013 and it was observed that in all the five acres there was mixing of seed to the extent of 24.8%. Thus, the opposite parties supplied inferior, sub standard and mixed quality of seed, due to which he suffered a loss of Rs.35,000/- per acre. He requested the opposite parties to compensate him, but they refused to accede to his request, which clearly amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, due to which he suffered mental pain and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is bad for non-compliance of provisions of section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act; that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties; that the complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which can be decided only by Civil Court.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the opposite party no.1 supplied the sealed packet of the product to the complainant. The complainant never complained to opposite party no.1 regarding the mixing or substandard quality of seed. If, there was any loss to the complainant, the same could be due to some other reasons. The report of the Technical Committee of Agriculture Department, if any, was prepared without notice to the opposite parties just in order to help the complainant. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.2 also filed separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is bad for non-compliance of Section 13(1)( c) of the Consumer Protection Act; that no compliance of rule 23 (A) of the Seeds Rules 1974 was made; that the directions issued by Director of Agriculture dated 03.01.2002 were not complied with; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and that the complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided in summary manner.

                   On merits, it has been pleaded that the method of zero drilling of paddy crop is not recommended in the general practice, because the previous year of the crop sown in the fields will auto germinate on the next year and the crop sown in the fields may be having the mixture of the previous year crop seed also. No notice was given by the Technical Committee, therefore, the report is not binding upon opposite party no.2.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 alongwith empty bag of packet containing seed have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Rajinder Kumar Ex.OP1, affidavit of Bhupinder Kumar Ex.OP2/1 and document Ex.OP2/2 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant had purchased five bags of 10 kilograms each of PR-114 paddy seed manufactured/packed by opposite party no.2, from opposite party no.1, vide invoice no.5891 dated 17.5.2013. As per the case of the complainant he had sown the said seed with the help of “Zero Drill Machine” in 5 acres, but when the crop had grown, it was found that the half of the crop was ready and the remaining half had not matured. Therefore, he moved application to Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal, who constituted a Technical Team, which visited his fields and found that there was mixing of 24.8% in the paddy crop.

8.                 The main plank of the complainant is the report Ex.C4 prepared by Team constituted by Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal. According to the said report, the fields of the complainant were inspected on 11.09.2013 and in one acre of the land it was found that there was mixing in the PR-114 variety to the extent of 24.8%. The complainant had sown 5 acres of paddy crop from the seed purchased from opposite party no.1, but the Team inspected only one acre of land. It was mentioned in the report that the complainant told that he got removed the plants of other varieties from the remaining four acres of land. It is pertinent to note that in the report it was not specifically mentioned that the remaining four acres of the land of the complainant was also inspected and it was observed that the plants of other varieties were got removed from the same. The report was based upon the fact told by the complainant to the Technical Team and not upon the observation made by the Technical Team in respect of the remaining four acres of land. Had there been mixing in the seed sold to the complainant to the extent of 24.8%, then certainly in the entire 5 acres of land mixed variety plants must have been visible even at the time of inspection by the Technical Team. It is not possible for a farmer to get removed 24.8% plants of other verities by employing labour and that too when the remaining crop had matured. Therefore, the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove that there was mixing of seed purchased by the complainant from opposite parties no.1 and 2 and sown in 5 acres of land.

9.                The complainant has submitted that he had sown the seed with the help of “Zero Drill Machine”. In “Zero Drill Machine” method the seedlings are not prepared separately in beds then transplanted, rather the seed is directly sown in the fields. In such a situation, the possibility of germination of seed of the previous year lying in the fields cannot be ruled out. To rule out the possibility of germination of previous year seed lying in the field, still bed technique is required to be adopted, but the complainant has neither alleged nor led any evidence that he had adopted that technique before sowing the seed in his field. The opposite parties have produced the certificate issued by Seed Certification Agency, which had certified the seed of the lot sold to the complainant.

10.              In view of the  afore discussed facts and circumstances, we arrive at the conclusion that the complainant has not able to establish that the seed supplied by the opposite parties was having mixed varieties and was of inferior quality.

11.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 28.10.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member