Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1164/2012

Kushal Pal S/o Bhanwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Luxmi Beej Kender - Opp.Party(s)

Sahib Singh

12 Jun 2017

ORDER

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

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1164 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 05.11.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 12.06.2017.

Shri Kushal Pal son of Shri Bhanwar Singh, resident of VPO Ahmedpur, District Sharanpur (UP).     

                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Luxmi Beej Kender, Old Subzi Mandi, Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) through its proprietor Chaman Lal Seth.
2. M/s Bayer Bio Science Pvt., Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hinanandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400076.

                                                                                                      ...Respondents.  

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER

 

Present:           Sh. SS Gujjar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                       Sh. MC Gupta with Shri Saurabh Bansal, Advocates, for respondent No.1. 

                       Complaint dismissed qua respondent No.2. 

 

ORDER (Ashok Kumar Garg, President)

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- in cash for loss sustained by him due to inferior quality of paddy seeds and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

 2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased 08 bags of bayer Swipt hi breed paddy seed, from OP No.1 (manufactured by OP No.2) vide sale invoice No. 17653 dated 05.06.2012 for a total sum of Rs.5600/-. After purchase of abovesaid seed, the complainant had sown the abovesaid bayer Swipt hi Breed seed as nursery and sowed the podh of said paddy seed in 2.5 acre i.e. in 12.5 bigha of his land as per instructions of OP. And every bigha of land there, gives produce of 08 quintal. And in the month of September, 2012 after inspecting the standing paddy crop, the complainant found that the seed in question was of two different quality. Whereas the OP had assured the complainant that the seed in question was one of the best quality while selling it to the complainant. Due to two different type of seed, some were riped and some were germinating. On 25.09.2012 complainant met the OP No.1 and narrated the whole facts to him and also requested to do the needful. At this OP assured the complainant to make solution of this problem/loss of complainant within one week period. Thereafter, complainant so many times tried to contact with OP telephonically, but to no effect. Then complainant sent a letter to the OP on 25.10.2012, through registered post in this context. On 04.10.2012, complainant wrote a letter to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Saharanpur with a request to visit the fields of seed in question. At this a smiti/committee was constituted which inspected the four fields of standing hi breed paddy crop and found that 70% -75%  plants were ready to ripe and remaining 25% -30%  plants were in its initial stage. The said smiti categorically stated in its report dated 09.10.2012 duly signed by the Dy. Director Agriculture, Saharanpur that “shesh 25 se 30 pratishat Podhan main baliyan nahi nikli hain”. After obtaining the report dated 09.10.2012 the complainant approached the OP No.1 with folded hands to do the needful for compensating the complainant for loss suffered by him but all in vain.  Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainants have got no locus standi to file the present complaint, complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties as the complainant has neither made party to the distributor nor the manufacturer of the said seeds, complainant is stopped for filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, OP has purchased the said seeds in the packed bags from the distributor M/s Bhatia Pesticides and seed store, shop No.9, new Grain Market Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar, who is distributor of M/s Bayer Bio Science Private Limited, Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400076 who is manufacturer of the said seeds. The said seed has been sold to complainant in the packed bag in the same state in which it h as been purchased from the distributor. The report of Inspecting Team is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the said team prior to inspection of the land neither has given any notice to answering OP nor to the distributor or manufacturer. The said report is also not sustainable as the inspecting team has not mentioned Killa numbers and Khasra No. of the land, which was inspected by the Inspecting Team. Thus, the said report does not pin point the identity of land of complainant and on merit it is stated that the complainant be put to strict proof of the averments made and rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     As the complainant failed to get the service of OP No.2 effected, hence complaint qua the OP No.2 was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2017.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence joint affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA and documents such as Photo copy of bill vide Bill No.17653 dated 05.06.2012 as Annexure C-1, photocopy of letter to Luxmi Beej Kender as Annexure C-2, photocopy of report from Dy. Director Agriculture, Saharanpur as Annexure C-3, Receipt No.74 dated 05.10.2012 as Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Chaman Lal as Annexure R-A and documents such as photocopy of bill No.181 dated 30.04.2012 as Annexure R-1 and photocopy of bill No.17653 dated 05.06.2012 as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased 08 bags of bayer swipt  hi breed paddy seed for an amount of Rs. 5600/- vide receipt/Bill No.17653 dated 05.06.2012 (Annexure C-1). Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the seed supplied by the OP No.1 was having mixing of other varieties and in this regard the complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture Saharanpur for inspection of the said paddy crop. The officers of the Agriculture Department visited the field of complainant and submitted their report (Annexure C-3) mentioning therein that the other varieties were found mixed in the paddy crop. Complainant further alleged in his complaint that due to the supplying of substandard and mixed seeds, the complainant has suffered a monetary loss and prayed for compensation. 

9.                     Learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued that the report is nothing but it is a waste paper as no notice was ever given either to the manufacturer or to the dealer before inspecting the field of the complainant. Moreover, the inspecting team had not mentioned Killa No. and Khasra No. of  the land which was inspected by the inspecting team. Thus the said report does not pin point the identity of land of complainant and it cannot be stated as to which field it pertains. It has further been argued that there is also a mandatory provision under section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provisions. So, it is quite clear that the inspecting team has tried to give undue benefits to the complainant in their report and referred the case laws titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar and another, IV(2013), CPJ 186 (NC), Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company, 2007(2) CLT, Page no.683, Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company and another, II (2013) CPJ 617 (NC), Anand Singh Vs. Khurana Seed Store and another 2007(1) CPC, Page No.95.

10.                   It is not disputed that complainants had purchased 08  bags of paddy seed (Manufactured by OP No. 2), for an amount of Rs. 5600/- from the OP No.1 vide Bill No. 17653 dated 05.06.2012 (Annexure C-1).   

11.                   The contention of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality and that was also having mixture of seed of different varieties and to prove his contention he placed the report of Agriculture Department Annexure C-3.

12.                   Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Annexure C-3 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Annexure C-3), it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by only one officer of Agriculture Department i.e. Deputy Director Agriculture, Saharanpur not by any committee or team of officer as no name of that person has been disclosed in the report Annexure C-3. Further no representative from the concerned seed company was associated at the time of inspection of the field. Even no respectable person like Sarpanch, Panch or Lumberdar or any neighborer of land has been joined at the time of inspection of the field. Besides it, the said report is also not authenticated because the alleged inspection has been made by only one officer of the Agriculture Department without getting the land identified from any official of the `Revenue Deptt. prior to spot inspection as no Killa Number or Khasra number has been mentioned in the report and as such it cannot be said with certainty as to which field the inspection report in question pertains. The same view has been held in case titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, IV (2013) CPJ page 186 National Commission, it has been held that Agriculture-Defective Seed-Growth of crop not satisfactory-Loss suffered-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed the complaint- State Commission accepted appeal and dismissed the complaint- Hence revision- When there is complaint by the farmers regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kender- Said inspection had not been followed by the Agriculture Department while giving their report- Factum of the complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or other evidence- No illegality or irregularity in impugned order. Revision dismissed.

13.                   There is a mandatory provision under section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provision nor moved any application to the concerned authority i.e. Agriculture Department or this Forum to get the sample from the OPs and send for analysis.  Further, no any notice has been served upon the OPs prior to inspection of the field and thus the report in question prepared at the back of the OPs is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Without any expert evidence on the record as provided in section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act it cannot be said that seed sold to the complainants were adulterated and were of inferior quality. Reliance on this point can be taken from the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies 2007 (2) CLT page 683 and Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others 2013 Volume 2 page 616 National Commission wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that petitioner had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under provision of section 13(1)         ( C ) of the Consumer Protection Act  1986- He had also not moved an application before the concerned authority for getting seed of the 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- Inferior quality of seed not proved. The observations mentioned in the case laws titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies & Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others (supra) are fully applicable in the present case.

14.                   Apart from above noted facts, we are of the considered view that the complainant has also failed to file any revenue record i.e. Khasra Girdawari showing his ownership and cultivation of land or file any documentary evidence to prove that he has cultivated any land after taking from any other person on lease or any other way. Furthermore, the Agriculture officer has totally failed to explain the criteria for assessing the percentage of 25% to 30% of mixing as mentioned in the report. In the absence of method adopted by the said Agriculture Officer, it cannot be said that the criteria adopted by the said officer is correct. The said Agriculture Officer simply mentioned that 25-30% of other varieties were found mixed in the paddy crop, it does not mean that there was loss of 25% to 30%. Further, the said Agriculture Officer has nowhere mentioned in the report (Annexure C-3) that there was any loss to the complainant, even, the complainant has also totally failed to prove any loss by cogent evidence. So, after going through the above noted discussion and law we are of the considered view that the report Annexure C-3 has no value in the eyes of law and there is no other evidence on the file to prove that seed in question was of inferior quality and that the same was having mixture of the different variety.    

15.                   Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 12.06.2017.           

                                                                            (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                             PRESIDENT, DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

 

            (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                 (S.C.SHARMA)

              MEMBER                                               MEMBER