BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No. 259 of 2017.
Date of Instt.:09.10.2017.
Date of Decision: 28.02.2019
Ramphal aged 36 years son of Shadi Ram, resident of Village Indachoi, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.
...Complainant
Versus
- Managing Director, Mathelix Life Sciences Limited Office Plot No. 3, KI ADB 4 Phase, Bomasdra, Bangalore.
- Managing Director, Dhaanya Seeds Limited A-Tata Office Plot No. 3, KI ADB 4 Phase Bomasdra, Bangalore.
- M/s Goutam Beej Bhandar, Anaj Mandi Bhuna, District Fatehabad through its Proprietor & Owner.
- M/s Satya Beej Bhandar, Kulla Road Indachoi, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad Proprietor Satyawan son of Prem Singh & Balwan Singh son of Surajbhan, resident of village Indachoi, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.
..Opposite Parties/ Respondents.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.
Present: Sh. Ajay Matana, Advocate for the complainant.
S/Sh. V.K. Mehta & Sh. S.B. Sarfana, Advocates for the
OP no. 1 & 3.
Sh. S.B. Sardana, Advocate for OP no. 2.
Sh. Sandeep Tantia, Advocate for OP no. 4.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he is a resident of village Indachoi District Fatehabad and is an agriculturist by profession. It is further submitted that for sowing Bajra crop in his fields he approached to OP no. 4 and asked him for selling Bajra seed. Upon this OP no. 4 offered Bajra seed of MP7792 variety and assured that the seed is of very good quality and it will give a very good yield. At the instance of OP no. 4 the complainant purchased 5 packets of Bajra seed of MP7792 variety vide bill no. 801 dated 1.6.2016 and whole payment for the abovesaid seed was made by the complainant to the OP no. 4.
2. It is further submitted that the complainant had sown the abovesaid seed as per the instructions and directions given by the OP no. 4. Water and manure was also supplied to the crop as per instructions of the OP no. 4. However, despite all the efforts the germination of the seed sold by the OP no. 4 to the complainant was not proper and the seed in question was proved to be duplicate. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint with OP no. 3 & 4 and thereafter the field was inspected by OP no. 3 & 4 but no satisfactory reply was given. Therefore, a complaint was made by the complainant to the Officers of the Seed Producing Company but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to the Agriculture Department, Haryana and the field wherein the crop was sown was inspected by the experts of the Agriculture Department and samples of the seed were also taken by the experts and the same was sent to Laboratory at Uchani, Karnal for examination and as per the report of the laboratory the germination in the seed was found to be just 38%.
3. It is further submitted that the abovesaid seed was sown in 4 acres and 7 kanals of land by the complainant and as such the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is further submitted that by selling a duplicate seed to the complainant the Ops have committed deficiency in rendering service to him and as such he is entitled for compensation. The complainant has further prayed that the Ops may be directed for making a payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. Hence, the present complaint.
4. Upon notice OPs No. 1 & 3 appeared through their counsel and filed a joint written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, suppression of true and correct facts, locus standi etc. have been raised.
5. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant never made any complaint to the answering Ops regarding the seed in question. It is further submitted that the seed supplied by OP no. 4 was not of inferior quality and rather it was as per standard and of good quality. It is further submitted that the site was not inspected in presence of the OP no. 3 and no notice was given by the Agriculture Department to the answering Ops for inspection of the field. It is also submitted that the officers of the Agriculture Department have no authority to inspect the field of farmers regarding the complaint of poor quality of seed. In case there is any complaint regarding the quality of poor seed then the field of the complainant/farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising of 2 officers of Agriculture Department and one representative of the concerned seed agency. However, in the present case no inspection was carried out by the Authorized Committee. Therefore, the report of the Agriculture Department cannot be relied upon. It is also further submitted that the report of the lab of Uchani is wrong and no chance of re-testing of seed has been given to the answering Ops. Since the time of testing had already expired so the said report is not binding upon the answering Ops. It is further denied that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,50,000/- and it is also denied that the seed supplied to the complainant by the OP no. 4 was inferior or of sub-standard quality. It is further submitted that the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. OP no. 4 also resisted the complaint by filing the written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, concealment of true and correct facts, locus standi and estoppel etc. have been raised.
7. In reply on merits, it is further submitted that the seed in question was purchased from OP no. 3 by OP no. 4 at the instance of the complainant. It is incorrect that the OP no. 4 had suggested to the complainant for purchasing the abovesaid seed. It is further submitted that on account of rain after sowing of the seed and on account of hot winds and less moisture in the soil the rate of germination in the seeds becomes less. It is further submitted that in case the complainant has suffered any loss in that eventuality OP no. 4 is not liable. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP no. 4 in rendering service to the complainant in the present case and as such the present complaint is liable be dismissed.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex.PW1/A and the documents as Annexure PW1 to Annexure PW13. On the other hand Sh.Sanjiv Kumar tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.R1 on behalf of OP3. Sh.Satyawan tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.R2 on behalf of OP No.4. The learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered in evidence the document as R3.
9. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased 5 packets of Bajra seed (1 and ½ kg each bag) brand MP7792 from OP No.4 on 01.06.2016. Thereafter, the seed was sown by the complainant as per direction given by OP No.4. It is further the case of the complainant that there was no germination in the above said seed as the same was duplicate/ substandard. Thereafter, the matter was brought into the knowledge of OPs No.3 and 4, but to no avail. It is further submitted that the field wherein the said seed was sown was inspected by the experts of Agriculture Department, Haryana and it was found that germination of the seed was 25-30%. The sample of the seed was also taken by the team of experts from the shop of Ops No.3 and 4 and the same was sent to Government Laboratory at Uchani, Karnal. The laboratory submitted its report and opined that the seed was substandard. It is further the case of the complainant that the above said act on the part of Ops in supplying substandard and inferior quality of seed to him amounts to deficiency and as such he is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.
10. On the other hand, it is the case of the Ops that the seed supplied to the complainant was of very good quality and the same was not substandard or adulterated. It is further the case of the Ops that the Kharif crop like other crops depends apart from seed quality, upon agro-climatic conditions, time of irrigation, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities and effective use of fertilizers. For proper germination of seed correct agriculture practice has to be followed. It is further the case of the Ops that it is not established on record as to whether the seed purchased by the complainant from the Ops was actually sown or not. It is also the case of the Ops that the site was inspected by the team of experts in absence of the Ops and no notice was given by the team of experts regarding the inspection. It is also the case of the Ops that inspection of the spot was not carried out by the authorized committee. Moreover, the laboratory at Uchani also conducted the examination of the seed without giving any notice to the Ops. It is further the case of the Ops that there is no deficiency on the part of Ops in selling Bajra seed to the complainant and as such the present complaint is without any merit and liable to be dismissed.
11. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. In view of the aforesaid discussion the core question involved in the present complaint for decision by this Forum is as to whether the seed sold to the complainant by the Ops was defective/ substandard or adulterated. To prove its case the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit wherein the averments made in the complaint have been affirmed. The complainant also placed on record the inspection report dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure PW2). Vide the above said report experts of the Agriculture Department observed that in one Kanal of land wherein the Bajra crop was sown the number of plants was just 25-30%.
12 It is further pertinent to mention here that the inspecting team also took sample from the shop of Ops no.3 and 4 from stock which was sold by the Ops to the complainant. The said samples were sent by the inspecting team to Seed Testing Laboratory, Uchani, Karnal. The seed testing laboratory after examining the seed observed that the dead seed was 38%, abnormal seedling was 6%, normal seedling was 56%. After receiving the above said report of the laboratory The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Tohana observed that the seed supplied to the complainant by the Ops was of lowest category and regarding the same he gave intimation to the complainant vide letter Ex.PW4. It is also pertinent to discuss here the after receiving the report from the laboratory the seed inspector filed a complaint before the court of SDJM, Tohana, under Section 19 of the Seed Act for violation of Section 6A against OP No.4. On the basis of above said complaint the Hon’ble Court issued notice to OP No.4 for 11.05.2017 (Annexure PW13).
13. In view of the Inspection Report dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure PW2) of the experts of Agriculture Department and report of seed Testing Laboratory, Uchani, Karnal (Annexure PW3) and other documents placed on record Pw2, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove that adulterated/ substandard or inferior quality of seed was sold to him by the Ops. The Ops has not placed any report of the laboratory or any other convincing credible evidence to prove that the seed sold to the complainant that the seed sold to the complainant was of good quality.
14. In view of aforesaid discussion we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of Op No.1 being manufacturer of the seed sold to the complainant. In its pleadings the OP No.1 has also submitted that the OP No.2 has merged with OP no.1 and the OP No.2 is not in existence. Since the Ops No.3 and 4 had received the seed in question in sealed packets and the same were further sold to the complainant in same condition. We are therefore of the opinion that no deficiency is proved against Op No.3 and 4 in selling the seed in question to the complainant.
16. Regarding quantum of loss it is submitted that the complainant had sown the seed in question in 4 Acre and 7 Canal of agriculture land. It is a matter of common knowledge that one acre of land gives yield of 10 quintals of Bajra. The rate of Bajra in the year 2016 was around 1200 per quintals. Therefore, the complainant has suffered a total loss of about Rs.58,000/-. Therefore the OP No.1 is directed for making a payment of Rs.58,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month. The Op No.1 is further directed for making a payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation charges. The present order be complied with within a period of one month otherwise the amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a during the default period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum:
Dated:28.02.2019
(Raghbir Singh) President District Consumer Disputes
(Jasvinder Singh) (Rajni Goyat) Redressal Forum,Fatehabad.
Member Member
