Haryana

Karnal

CC/531/2020

Mandeep Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohan Seeds Company - Opp.Party(s)

Joginder Singh Rana

06 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No. 531 of 2020

                                                      Date of instt.26.11.2020

                                                      Date of Decision:06.10.2023

 

Mandeep Rana aged about 31 years, son of Shri Arjun Singh, resident of village Beejna, District Karnal. Aadhar no.7775 5829 3599.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Mohan Seed Company, Old Subzi Mandi, Beej Market, Karnal, through its authorized signatory.

…..Opposite Party.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

                   

Argued by: Shri J.S. Rana, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Vishal Goel, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, president)

 

ORDER:   

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and he owns agriculture land in village Beejana, Tehsil & District Karnal. On 09.05.2020, complainant purchased paddy seed “PR-777 TL” 2x4 kg i.e. 8 kg. Batch no.254-1212 for an amount of Rs.880/- vide invoice no.686 from OP. Complainant sown the said seed in his agriculture land in the year 2020 after raising nursery ‘Paneeri. Complainant has transplanted the paddy Paneeri in his 2 acres of land.  When this crop was grown up, he found that off type/other varieties plants which were in grain formation/formation stage and there is uneven ripening. When the complainant found these observation in his fields then he made complaints to OP regarding selling of Duplicate seeds sold but OP has not paid any heed to the genuine requests made by complainant and he also requested to OP to give compensation of selling of duplicate seeds which was sold by OP but OP has flatly refused to give any compensation to the complainant. Complainant also made complaint to office of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal bearing complaint no.10/2020/136 and on this complaint, a committee consisting of Quality Control Inspector, Karnal, Subject Specialist (Agro), Karnal and Block Agriculture Officer, Gharauda, was formed by the said Department vide letter sr. no.4426 dated 06.10.2020 and all three members of the said committee visited the fields of complainant and they issued a report to the same effect. Complainant is suffering a great mental tension, harassment, agony so caused by OP on account of sale of duplicate seeds to him. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay claim amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of damaged paddy crop with interest @ 18% from the date of purchasing of the seeds and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has not impleaded manufacturer of the seed as party in the present complaint, who is necessary party in the complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant has not sent the seed for testing the same to the Laboratory and there is no laboratory report placed on file. Complainant had not supplied any documents to the OP, regarding alleged report of technical committee and other relevant documents and information pertaining to the hands of the complainant. The technical committee was not constituted as per the directions issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana vide his letter memo no.52 to 70/TA (SS) dated 03.01.2002, Panchkula and with reference to the D.O. letter no.HSDC 15212 dated 11.12.2001 as per the direction of the Director Agriculture, Haryana, it is mandatory to associate two officers from the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU. As per allegations leveled in the complaint regarding the constitution of technical committee by the Deputy Director, Karnal and its report, it is submitted that as per the provisions of law as well as equity and natural justice, no information regarding the alleged visit to the fields of complainant was given to OP. The report as well as alleged inspection if any was made on the back of the OP, which is not legal. The copy of the report was not supplied by inspecting officials to the OP, so as to given an opportunity to the OP to present its view. It is further pleaded that complainant failed to retain the sample of the crop for getting tested in the government lab. So it can be ascertained that there is any defect in the seed. The sample of this seed was also not got tested by the complainant as per the mandatory provisions of section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. In the absence of compliance of mandatory provision of section 38(2)(c)  the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that there was no defect in the seed in question which was sold to the complainant. The germination of seed could be result of various factors and not related to the quality of the seeds. Germination of the seeds depends upon factors like type of irrigation, fertility of soil, weather conditions, fertilizers, method of sowing etc. In the alleged report there is no column which mentions the area, khasra, killa numbers of the land of complainant. Without the khewat, khatoni, khasra and killa numbers it cannot be ascertained whether the alleged land was of complainant or some other person. The defect in the seeds cannot be detected on the basis of visual inspection of the fields alone, moreover the complainant has not placed the Form J regarding his yield and also not placed on record any data or proof regarding the yield of previous year. The 5kg of paddy seed is required to be sowed for one acre of land and the Agriculture Department has also issued guidelines in this regard but the complainant sowed 4kg in one acres of land. The other plants of previous crop can also germinate, the seeds which have not germinated due to any reason. It is further pleaded that no copy of bill was ever supplied by complainant to the OP.  No other consumer complaint about the same seed has been made by any consumer. The seed sold by OP to the public in general is best in quality. The seed was purchased by the complainant after verifying all the aspects of seeds and after his full satisfaction. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

 

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of original bill Ex.C1, copy of original report of Deputy Director Agriculture Ex.C2, copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C3, copy of sale deed in the name of mother and wife of complainant Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 21.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Pavitar Singh Ex.OPW1/A, copies of bills Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence on 17.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel for the OP also submitted the written arguments.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased paddy seed “PR-777 TL” 8 kgs from the OP and sown the said seed in his land. When the said seeds were in growing stage, then the complainant noticed that there are mixing of any other typed paddy. Complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture Officer, Karnal for inspection of the crop.  The authority concerned constituted a committee and inspection committee visited the site on 06.10.2020 and prepared the inspection report. In the said report, the inspection committee has mentioned that there is mixing of 45-50% of other varieties seed and the farmer would suffer a loss of 25-30% and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently that the complainant had purchased two varieties of the seed and had planted two varieties of the seed in two acres of land and it is only reason that two types of varieties of the paddy crop was found in the field of the complainant. The inspection report dated 06.10.2020 prepared behind the back of representative of the OPs and said report cannot be considered as a truth in support of the contentions of the complaint. The report as well as the complaint does not show the exact date of sowing the paddy seed. The alleged seed has not sent to the laboratory for testing, which is mandatory as per law. OP relied upon the case law titled as  M/s Prem Brother through its sole Prop. Versus Bharpur Singh in Revision Petition no.1674 of 2014, date of decision 12.02.2016 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have considered duly the rival contentions of the parties.

10.                  It is evident from the bill Ex.C1 dated 09.05.2020, the complainant purchased 8Kgs seeds of PR-777 TL and 10Kg PR 126 from the OP for the consideration of Rs.2480/-. Complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee on 06.10.2020 and prepared its report Ex.C2. In the said report it is mentioned that in two acres land of the complainant about 45 to 50% of the crop standing is of other variety and there is mixing in seed due to which the possibility of getting low price in the sale of the crop cannot be ruled out. Further, the possibility that farmer would suffer loss about 25 to 30%. Hence, we are of the considered view that the inspection committee is not sure about the actual loss occurred due to alleged mixing.

11.           The OP has also taken a plea that there is not even a single complaint regarding the alleged dispute i.e. defected seed except the present complaint. OP had sold the said seed to various farmers including complainant but except complainant nobody has made any complaint with regard to mixing inferior quality of the seeds. In support of its version OP has placed on file copies of bills Ex.OP1 to OP11. Rather, complainant has also failed to examine any other farmer who had also purchased the same variety seeds from the OP having any complaint with regard to mixing/another quality of seeds.

12.           Complainant himself had purchased two variety of seeds and had planted two variety of  seeds of paddy in two acres of land. It is the common practice of farmers to prepare the various types of nurseries of different varieties of seeds in the form of dividing the land in small parts like kyaris. Therefore, the possibility of alleged mixing on the hands of complainant and his labourer cannot be ruled out.     

13.           Complainant has not impleaded the manufacturers of the seed as parties to the complaint. OP is only a seller, not manufacturer of the said seeds. Thus, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

14.           Thus, in view of the above, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 06.10.2023

                                                                President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member