Haryana

Karnal

323/2012

Ramesh Kumar S/o Kali Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishi Beej Pesticides 22 - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kundu

05 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 323 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt. 09.07.2012

                                                               Date of decision:05.09.2016

 

Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Chand son of Shri Kali Ram, resident of village and Post Office Alahar, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna nagar.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Krishi Beej @ Pesticides 22, Mahila Ashram Road, Behind Bus Stand Karnal.

2. Nodai Seeds India Pvt. Ltd. 38^th Mile Stone, N.H.-8,Behrampur Road, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001.

3. Nodia Seeds India Pvt. Ltd. Research Office, Anand Vihar Block RB-404, Toli Chowki, Hydrabad 500 008 (AP).

 

                                                                                 …………Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Anil Kundu Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Virender Sachdeva Advocate for opposite party

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased seven bags of HYBRID 9001 Paddy Seed from the opposite party no.1 vide bill no.569 dated 25.3.2008. The bags of Hybrid paddy seed were of lot no.AJGO-2561, DDP 17.3.2008. The said seed was produced and marketed by the opposite parties no.2 and 3 through their dealers including the opposite party no.1. He had sown the said paddy seed in seven acres of land. When the crop grew up, it was found that there was mixing of more than 30% in the said seed. He approached the opposite party no.1 in that regard, but of no avail. Thereafter, he approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar, who constituted a Team. The said team visited of his fields and submitted report. It was clear from the report that he suffered 30% loss due to low quality seed. He sent registered legal notice dated 8.9.2008 to the opposite parties to compensate him, but the same did not yield any result. He suffered loss of Rs.2,35,000/- due to the mixed seed supplied by the opposite parties, apart from mental pain agony and harassment.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not within limitation; that the complaint is bad for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act; that no representative of the opposite parties was joined by the Inspection Team constituted by Deputy Director Agriculture; that the complaint is not legally maintainable and that intricate questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this Forum by summary procedure.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that no kila number in which paddy seed was transplanted by the complainant has been mentioned. Even no detail of raising nursery and planting the same in the seven acres of land has been given. The complainant has not mentioned the details of the procedure adopted by him as per guidelines issued by Agriculture Department for use of the Hybrid seeds. The product supplied to the complainant was of the best quality. The company had sold for 2-2.5 lac acre’s seed in Haryana, but no complaint was received from any part of Haryana. As per recommendation of Agriculture Department Haryana six kilograms to 8 kilograms seed is required for one acre, but as per allegations of the complainant he used only 3 kilograms seed for one acre. The report prepared by the Inspection Team is not binding upon the opposite parties as the guidelines issued by Agriculture Department Haryana in the letter dated 03.01.2002 were not followed. If, there was any loss to the complainant the same could be due to other reasons and not on account of quality of seed purchased by him from the opposite parties. In this way, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Rajinder Kumar Ex.OP1 and  affidavit of Anil Kumar Sales Managers Ex.OP2 have been tendered.

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

6.                The complainant had purchased seven bags of Hybrid 9001 paddy seed from opposite party no.1 on 25.3.2008 and he had planted the said seed in seven acres of land. When the crop grew up, he found that there was mixing. He got his crop inspected from a Team of Experts constituted by Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar and as per the report of the Expert Team 28- 30% plants of other verities were found in the crop, which could affect the yield and quality of paddy crop.

7.                The opposite parties have admitted about sale of the paddy seed to the complainant, but it has been alleged that the complainant had used 3 kilograms seed per acre whereas according to recommendation of Agriculture Department Haryana six kilograms to 8 kilograms seed is required for one acre. It has also been alleged that the complainant has not given the detail of the procedure adopted by him for use of the Hybrid seed.

8.                The main plank of the complainant is the report of the Technical Experts Team constituted by Deputy Director Agriculture Yamuna Nagar, the copy of which is Ex.C3. As per the said report plants were counted per square meter and it was found that in seven acres of land there were plants of other varieties to the extent of 28-30% due to which there would be less production to that extent and the quality of paddy would be affected. Thus, it is emphatically clear from the report that there was no problem of germination of seed sold to the complainant by the opposite party, but other varieties were found mixed in the seed. The complainant has produced one empty bag as Ex.C14 on which lot number has been mentioned as AJGO 2561. The opposite parties have not produced  any document, which may show the seed of the said lot was got tested and certified from authorized laboratory before packing the same in the bags for the purpose of marketing.

 9.               No doubt the Technical Experts Team did not join any person of the opposite parties before carrying out the inspection but the report cannot be discarded merely on this ground. All the members of the Team were Officers of Agriculture Department and it could not be expected from them to give false report. The complainant had even got issued notice to the opposite parties on 8.9.2008, the copy of which is Ex.C9. At that time the crop must be existing in the field and the opposite parties had opportunity to get inspected the crop from Agriculture Expert to rebut the report submitted by the Technical Experts of Agriculture Department and to prove that there was no mixing of any other variety seed in the paddy seed sold to the complainant. However, no such step was taken by the opposite parties in that direction. Therefore, there is no reason to ignore the report of the Technical Experts of Agriculture Department.

10.              In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, it is established that there was mixing of other varieties in the paddy seed sold by the opposite parties to the complainant and the mixing was found to the extent of 28-30%. The report of Technical Experts of Agriculture Department does not indicate that the other varieties plants had different timings of maturity than the plants of Hybrid 9001. However, this fact cannot be ignored that due to mixing of other varieties seed the yield and quality of the paddy would have been certainly affected upto some extent and such mixed paddy crop could not fetch the same market price as Hybrid variety 9001 could fetch. In this way, the complainant certainly suffered loss and the opposite parties are bound to compensate him as the loss was due to sale of mixed variety paddy seed to the complainant. Looking into the facts and circumstances, it would be reasonable to assess the loss of Rs.35000/- to the complainant.

11.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.35,000/- to the complainant  as compensation for loss due to mixed seed of paddy supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:05.09 2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member