Haryana

Kurukshetra

40/2018

Devi Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahadev Beej - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Saini

24 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.40 of 2018

Date of Instt.:20.02.2018

Date of Decision:24.02.2022.

 

Devi Lal Saini son of Sh.Mohinder Singh resident of village Kasithal, P.O.Bhagwanpur, District Kurukshetra.                                                             

                                                              …….Complainant.  

                                             Versus

 

1.Mahadev Beej Bhandar, Salarpur Road, Kurukshetra through its proprietor.

2.Quality Hybrid Seeds Co. Office: 222-A, New Grain Market,  Hissar 125002, Plant -12KM Stone Mangoli (Hissar).

3.The Haryana State Seed Certification Agency, Sector 14,Panchkula.

4.Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana (OP No.4 given up vide order dated 06.09.2021).

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

 

 

Present:     Sh.Rahul Saini Advocate for the complainant.

                OP No.1 ex parte.

                Sh.Gaurav Gupta Advocate for the OP No.2.

                Sh.Ravinder Bhardwaj Advocate for the OP No.3.

 ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Devi Lal against Mahadev Beej Bhandar  etc., the opposite parties.

 

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and OP No.1 told to him that he is having best quality seeds produced by OP No.2 and the said seeds are certified by the Govt. agency. Therefore, the complainant purchased ten kg of paddy mark PB 1509 which has been certified by OPNo.3. The said seeds were purchased for a sum of Rs.600/- vide bill No.2831 dated 19.05.2017. The bag containing the seeds mark of OP No.2 and certified by OP No.3. The OP No.1 also assured that the seed would be sufficient for two acres of land. The complainant planted paddy crop on two acres of land  but when it  reached near maturity, he noticed that the seeds were of inferior quality and of sum other variety.  The complainant contacted the Agriculture authority and got inspected the same  who reported that 33% plants were of different variety other than PB 1509 and thus the complainant suffered great financial loss.  Thereafter, the complainant and asked him to compensate the complainant  who asked that he will get compensation from OP No.2 and will pay the same to the complainant upto 1.09.2017 but nothing has been paid which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to pay the compensation for loss of crops and for mental harassment alongwith litigation expenses.

 

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs.  However, OP No.1 was given up by the complainant vide statement dated 6.09.2021.

 

4.             OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that the seed in question is a certified seed by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency which is State Govt. undertaking. OP No.2 acquired the seed from farmers approved by the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and under the supervision of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency, in sealed packet and sold the same in the same condition which was acquired. The entire operation is supervised by technically qualified and trained offers right from the field inspection of standing crop upto packing in bags for marketing destination. Every single bag of respondent no.2 contains marka of respondent no.2 and having a tag of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency. The complainant has not deposited/attached with petition, empty bags and tags to prove that the purchased seeds which germinated /sown in his field.  It is submitted that there is no documentary proof like jamabandi or area of specific land etc. It is further submitted that report conducted by DDA  is also faulty in nature, as this inspection was conducted by a committee of three persons but for conducting inspection there must be committee of four persons i.e. two officers from Agriculture Department, one from  concerned seed agency and one scientists from KGK/KVK/IARI or HAU. It is denied that the complainant suffered any loss and thus it is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed.

 

5.             The OP No.3 filed its separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  In the instant case the answering OP has certified paddy PB 2509 bearing lot NO. OCT 16-17-274-01 pertaining to M/s Quality Hy.Seed Co.222-A New Grain Market Hissar by following the complete and systematic procedure. HSSCA –answering OP in no way involved  in deterioration of the quality of the seed after certification deterioration in the quality of the lot in question is due to poor handling of seed after release of certificate  by Seed procedure, dealer and complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant did not use 16 kg. required quantity of the seed for sowing 2 acres. As per CCS HAU recommendation 8 kg.per acre seed is advised and sowing of lesser quality resulted in poor plant population and desired production cannot be expected.  All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and it was submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

6.             The OP No.4 filed its separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that upon the application dated 4.9.2017 moved by the complainant, Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurkshetra constituted a team for the inspection of fields vide letter bearing No. 4233-35/ADO-QC dated 6.9.2017 and same was also endorsed to the Dealer as well as to the company. Accordingly, on 13.9.2017 the above said tem constituted by the DDA, Kurukshetra visited the fields of the complainant and submitted the inspection report.  Regarding other allegations made in the complaint, it is stated that the same needs no reply. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

7.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1  to Ex.C-20 and closed his evidence.

 

8.             The OP No.3 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW2/A and tendered documents Ex.RW-2/B to Ex.RW2-D and closed its evidence.

 

                Sh.Jitender Mehtra Quality Central Inspector has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW4/A and closed evidence.

 

9.             Thereafter OP No.4 was given up by the complainant vide order dated 6.9.2021,

 

10.            The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant purchased ten kg of paddy mark PB 1509 which has been certified by OPNo.3. The said seeds were purchased for a sum of Rs.600/- vide bill No.2831 dated 19.05.2017. The bag containing the seeds mark of OP No.2 and certified by OP No.3. The OP No.1 also assured that the seed would be sufficient for two acres of land. The complainant planted paddy crop on two acres of land  but when it  reached near maturity, he noticed that the seeds were of inferior quality and of sum other variety.  The complainant contacted the Agriculture authority and got inspected the same  who reported that 33% plants were of different variety other than PB 1509 and thus the complainant suffered great financial loss.  Thereafter, the complainant and asked him to compensate the complainant  who asked that he will get compensation from OP No.2 and will pay the same to the complainant upto 1.09.2017 but nothing has been paid which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops

 

11.            On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2  while reiterating the submissions made in the written statement has argued that the seed in question is a certified seed by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency which is State Govt. undertaking. OP No.2 acquired the seed from farmers approved by the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and under the supervision of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency, in sealed packet and sold the same in the same condition which was acquired. The entire operation is supervised by technically qualified and trained offers right from the field inspection of standing crop upto packing in bags for marketing destination. Every single bag of respondent no.2 contains marka of respondent no.2 and having a tag of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency. The complainant has not deposited/attached with petition, empty bags and tags to prove that the purchased seeds which germinated /sown in his field.  It is submitted that there is no documentary proof like jamabandi or area of specific land etc. It is further submitted that report conducted by DDA  is also faulty in nature, as this inspection was conducted by a committee of three persons but for conducting inspection there must be committee of four persons i.e. two officers from Agriculture Department, one from  concerned seed agency and one scientists from KGK/KVK/IARI or HAU. It is denied that the complainant suffered any loss and thus it is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed. The learned counsel for the OP has placed reliance on the authority Shamsher Singh Vs. M/s Bagri Beej Bhandar revision petition No.2597 of 2012 decided on 23.2.2012 by rthe Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi. The counsel for the Ops has also placed reliance on the letter of Haryana Govt.  dated 8.2.2002.

 

12.            The learned counsel for OP No.3 has argued that OP has certified paddy PB 2509 bearing lot NO. OCT 16-17-274-01 pertaining to M/s Quality Hy.Seed Co.222-A New Grain Market Hissar by following the complete and systematic procedure. HSSCA –answering OP in no way involved  in deterioration of the quality of the seed after certification deterioration in the quality of the lot in question is due to poor handling of seed after release of certificate  by Seed procedure, dealer and complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant did not use 16 kg. required quantity of the seed for sowing 2 acres. As per CCS HAU recommendation 8 kg.per acre seed is advised and sowing of lesser quality resulted in poor plant population and desired production cannot be expected.

 

13.            The learned counsel for the OP  No.4 has argued that application dated 4.9.2017 moved by the complainant, Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra constituted a team for the inspection of fields vide letter bearing No. 4233-35/ADO-QC dated 6.9.2017 and same was also endorsed to the Dealer as well as to the company. Accordingly, on 13.9.2017 the above said tem constituted by the DDA, Kurukshetra visited the fields of the complainant and submitted the inspection report.

 

14.            After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the argument advanced on behalf of Ops that 16 Kg. of seed was required for two acres and loss has been caused due use of less quantity of seeds is devoid of any force. Firstly, the main issue in this case is regarding mixture in the seed and not use of less quantity of seeds. It is not the stand of the Ops that the loss is not due to mixed seeds, rather it is use of less use of quantity of seeds.  The complainant has used 10 Kg. of seeds for two acres of land and  PUSA Basmati 1509 Literature drawn from  Google, 4-5 Kg. of seed for PUSA Basmati is sufficient  for use for one acre. In this case the complainant has used 10 Kg. of seed for two acres which is sufficient one and therefore, this contention of the Ops is rejected.

 

15.            As per report of Agriculture Department Ex.C-1, 33% of paddy plants had not ripened at the time of inspection. It is also clear from the report Ex.C-3 that the paddy crop was of 1509-  Basmati and  some of the plants were of other variety. This fact has certainly caused the loss to the complainant, therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- in lump sum for loss of crops due to mixed seeds supplied by the OP No.1 and 2  the deficiency in services on the part of OP N o.1 and 2 is proved who has sold the mixed seeds to the complainant.

 

16.    `      In the letter dated 8.1.2002 it is mentioned that “ it has been  decided that fields of complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department and one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of  GKG/KVK , HAU and report will be submitted to  this office immediately. But this compliance was to be made by the Govt. Officers and not by the complainant. In this case, the Ops cannot take benefit of such instructions  especially when the mixture in seed can be seen with naked eyes and it is reported in the report by the officers of the Agriculture Officer. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for Ops is also devoid of any merits and is hereby also  rejected. Therefore, deficiency in services on the part of OP No.1and 2 is established. However, no deficiency in services on the part of OP No.3 is made out.

 

17.                  In view of our above discussion and findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 and 2 to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the  complainant for loss in the paddy crop alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till its actual realization. The  OP No.1 and 2 shall also pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and Rs.5000/- for the litigation expenses. The OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint qua OP  No.3 stands dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 24.02.2022.                                                      President.

 

                                        Member             Member.