Haryana

Kurukshetra

313/2016

Saheb Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

LGalaxi Seeds - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav k Arora

20 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.313/16.

Date of instt. 2.12.16. 

                                        Date of Decision: 20.12.17.

 

Saheb Singh son of Hirda Ram, resident of village Kandrauli, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                  ……..Complainant.

                     Vs.

1. M/s Galaxi Seeds, Shop No.155, New Grain Market, Tarori, District Karnal, through its Proprietor.
2. M/s Goyal Seeds & Pesticides, Booth No.4, Radaur Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.    

 

 

Before             Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

        Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member                              

Present:      Sh. Gaurav K. Arora, Adv. for complainant.

 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Muwal, Adv. for Op No.1.

 Sh. Rajender Singh, Adv. for OP No.2.

          

ORDER

                                                    

 

              This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Saheb Singh against Galaxi Seeds & another, the opposite parties.

2.          It is stated in the complaint that complainant purchased 15 Kgs. paddy seeds of PB-1509 for a sum of Rs.675/- from Op No.2 vide bill No.543 dated 17.5.2016 and at that time OP No.2 assured that the seed is of good quality. The complainant sowed the said seed in his agriculture land as per procedure and as per direction of the Ops. After some time, the plants have grown up so big and no flowering took place on the plants and the complainant contacted Ops and OP No.2 advised to spray pesticides and the complainant sprayed the pesticides but the result remained nil. On 31.7.2016 the complainant went to OP No.1 and ask him about the inferior quality of the seed and complainant also informed that he also filed a complaint to the Deputy Director Agriculture Department, Yamuna Nagar and informed that a team of the said department will visit the field of complainant on 1.8.2016 and requested to remain present on that date for inspection of the fields of the complainant.  The team of the agriculture department inspected the fields and found that the variety PB-1509 has been planted in three acres of land in which 80 to 90% plants of paddy are suffering from Padgalan disease (Bakani) and yield of crop will be very low i.e. equal to nil and due to supply of inferior quality of seeds, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of loss of crop. The complainant approached the OPs and requested to compensate the complainant as they have suffered the loss due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, complainant claims Rs.2,00,000/- as loss of yield. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant.

3.           The Ops have failed to file the written statement despite availing several opportunities including last one and as such, their defense was struck off vide order dated 23.5.2017.    

4.          The complainant has tendered in to evidence his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C7 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Ops did not lead any evidence.

5.           We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

6.          It is to be seen that there are two letters dated 3.1.2002 one issued by the Director Extension Education and another issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana. In the first letter, it was asked that HSDC may be advised/ guided to visit the headquarter particularly, the department of Seed Science & Technology or Crop Breeder in the department of Plant breeding for expert opinion, scientists of KVKs may be asked to guide the farmers to visit the headquarter particularly, the Deptt. of Seed Science & Technology for expert opinion. Then as per second letter which is again of dated 3.1.2002, it was decided that fields of complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/ KVK, HAU and report will be submitted.

7.           The intent of these letters is that the fields will be inspected by a committee including the representative of concerned seed agency and it is only in his presence that the report will be submitted. In the present case, there is nothing on record that any intimation to the representative of the opposite parties was given either by the complainant or by the inspecting team and as such, the report cannot be said to be valid one. So, when the report, on which the entire claim of the complainant is based, is not valid, no compensation can be given to the complainant.

8.           Moreover, from the inspection report Ex.C1, it is clear that in the inspection report, Khasra numbers/Killa Numbers of the land have not been given and in such like circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the complainant’s field was inspected. From the perusal of inspection report, it is clearly revealed that the inspection was made by the team of Agriculture Department Office, B.A.O and S.M.S, whereas, as per circular of Director Agriculture, Haryana dated 3.1.2002 fields were to be inspected by a Committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of K.G.K./K.V.K. Admittedly, inspection was not carried out after due notice to representative of Ops and admittedly, not in their presence. In such like circumstances, inspection report made by some officers of the Agriculture Department cannot be acted upon and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seed was not of standard quality. In R.P. No.1451 of 2011 Syngenta India Ltd. Vs P. Chowdaiah P,.Sreenivasulu and Sai Agro Agencies, it was observed that inspection without notice to Ops is against principles of natural justice and no reliance was placed on inspection report as it was not supplied to the Ops to present his view on the report. In judgment RP No.4280 of 2007, Mahyco  Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs G. Sreenivasa Reddy & others, relying upon an authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs V. Sadhu and another II(2005) SLT 569=11(2005) CPJ, 13 SC=(2005) 3     SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors Civil Appeal No.2428/2008, it was held that variation of condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is a specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The Apex Court has held that the onus to prove that there was defect in the seeds was on the complainant.

9.          In an authority cited as J.K.Agro Genetics Ltd. Versus Bhopal & Others, J.K. Agro Genetics Ltd. Vs. Dalbir Singh and others, J.K. Agro Genetics Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Kumar and another, three Revision Petitions were allowed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi. The Hon’ble National Commission found that the complaint does not show that the seeds supplied to the respondent were either defective or spurious. It was held that the initial onus to prove that the seeds were either defective or spurious was on the complainant. The only evidence produced by the complainant regarding the defective seed is the report of the District Agriculture Officer. The report submitted by the District Agriculture Officer does not say that the seeds supplied were either defective or spurious. It was held that the complainant failed to discharge the onus placed on file. It is in these circumstances, that the Revision Petition was allowed.

10.        We have gone through the above said authority. The above said authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Applying the above said law, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove on record that there was defect in the seeds.

 11.       Some legal proposition has also been added by the complainant. It is stated that the learned counsel for the Ops has argued that the seed in question was required to be tested in the Laboratory which as per settled law is not necessary. It is added that it is not the responsibility of the farmer to get the seed tested in the Laboratory as settled down in 2004(2) Consumer Law Tribunal, page 301, titled as National Seed Corporation Ltd. Vs M. Madhusudan Reddy, in which it was held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that as per Section 2(1)(f) and 14(1)(d) of Seeds Act, 1966, Section 9, when the seed was defective and poor quality seed. No provision in seed act for compensating the farmer for his loss due to defective and poor quality of seed. Remedy of the consumer lies under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also held that the Provisions of Section 13(1) (c) become unimplementable then when has to resort to alternative method. Farmer is not expected to conserve certain portion of seed to meet ludicrous expectation of OP to produce some seeds from somewhere to get it tested to meet the requirements of Section 13(1) (c).

12.        We have gone through the above said authority. There is no doubt that the remedy of the complainant lies under the Provisions of Section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not under the Seed Act. It is also to be seen that this Forum has no where reached to the conclusion that the complainant was incumbent to produce the sample of the seed in question.

13.        In this regard, it is to be seen that we have already discussed the report of Agriculture Experts and the Forum is not satisfied with the same and as such, the above said authority is not at all applicable to the present case. There may be so many reasons of poor germination of seeds.  Germination of seeds depends upon the climatic conditions, nature of soil, proper irrigation, use of manure and fertilizer etc. In these circumstances, findings can be safely given that the cause of poor germination may not be quality of seeds but may be for other reasons also as mentioned above.

14.           So, in such like circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complaint is without any merit and as such, the complaint is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

                Copy of this order; be communicated to the parties.

Announced: 

Dt.20.12.2017.                                    (G.C.Garg)

                                                  President

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra

 

 

           (Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)

                         Member