Haryana

Ambala

CC/159/2022

Sanjay Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Aggarwal Seed Store - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	159 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	26.05.2022
Date of decision	:	19.01.2024

 

Sanjay Gupta age about 42 years S/o Sh. Ram Kumar resident of Village Shahzadpur, Tehsil-Naraingarh, District Ambala.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Aggarwal Seed Store, Near Punjab National Bank & Grain Market Ladwa, District Kurukshetra through its proprietor/partner or authorized person.
2. Synergene Crop Innovations, MIG 352/1, Flat No.203, Sri Krishna Enclave, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally, Hayderabad 500072 through its proprietor/partner or authorized person.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                              Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri Akash Garg, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                                   Shri Ashish Sareen, Advocate, counsel for the OPs. 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.5400/- i.e. cost of seed and  Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre expenses of crop, Rs.60,000/- for loss of two acre sunflower crop.
2. To pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant;
3. To pay Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. To pay the aforesaid amount alongwith interest @18% per annum, from the date of purchase of above said seed till actual payment is made.

 

2.           Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having agriculture land and is doing cultivation at village Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. OP No.1 is in the business of selling pesticides and seeds at Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. On 18-02-2022 the complainant purchased the seed of Sunflower 2 PKT (Two KG), Product REX THE KING 036 from OP No.1 for two acres of land, on payment of Rs.5400/- against invoice no. ASS-2673 dated 18-02-2022. At the time of selling the above said seed,  OP No.1 assured that he is selling this seed on behalf of OP No.2, which is a reputed company and the hybrid seeds processed by this company are giving best results to the farmers and the average yield of Sunflower from this seed is 09-10 quintal per acre. Accordingly on the assurance of OP No.1 the complainant purchased above said seed in good faith on cash payment. Thereafter the complainant sowed the above sunflower seed in his fields on 22-02-2022 in land bearing Khasra no.78//6 (7K-7M), 78//15/1 (1K), 79//10/2 (2 K), 79//11 (5K-13M), as per the correct procedure required.   However, when the crop came at creational/productive stage, the complainant was surprised to notice that instead of one flower on the plan, 5 to 10 flowers came out. Immediately thereafter the complainant contacted OP No.1 and made complaint about the same. OP No.1 asked the complainant to wait for sufficient time and not to worry about the yield. Thereafter OP No.1 started postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Finding no other alternative, the complainant on 19-04-2022 moved an application to D.D.A, Agriculture Department Ambala who constituted an inspection team having three competent officers of Agriculture Department, who visited the spot on 20-04-2022 and after inspection prepared a report, in which it has specifically been mentioned that complainant had spent Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- on the sunflower crop and it was also observed that instead of one flower on one plant, it  is found that 5 to 10 flowers have come on one plant. It was also opined that quality of Sunflower Seed is bad and that the complainant has suffered complete loss of yield along with the expenses. It was also opined that the OPs have not processed the seeds as per accurate norms. Thereafter despite taking up the matter with the OPs they failed to take any steps. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint;  the complainant had taken up the cultivation of paddy seeds in his fields for commercial purposes i.e. for raising the paddy seeds and selling the produce in the market to derive profit therefrom, as such, the complainant is not "consumer" as defined under consumer Protection Act; this complaint is not maintainable etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.1 is a dealer of OP No.2 and the seeds in question were sold to the complainant via sealed packet. The germination and proper yield is based on various factors. In the case of Ram Chander Versus Laxmi Beej Bhandar reported as (1, 1994-CPJ-33) and R.S. Banumathi Versus Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company limited reported as (1 1992 CPJ 248) the Hon'ble Court held that the proper yield is based on various factors such as proper preparation of the land, fertilization, pest and disease control, proper irrigation, climate and seasonal conditions which are not in the control of any human agency. Under the Seed Act, 1996 (which is the special enactment) remedy is available for the complainant to get his grievance redressed. The complainant has not placed on record the empty bags of seeds. The complainant has not provided any evidence to prove that he had sown the same seeds as are alleged to have been supplied by the OPs.  The complainant has also failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had followed correct and prescribed agricultural practices for sowing the paddy seed. The complainant has neither produced any evidence to the effect that he is owner of 2 Acres of Land nor disclosed the fact that how much seed is required for one Acre. The complainant before filing this complaint, did not approach the Seed Inspector regarding less germination of the seeds in his field. In fact, under the Seed Rules, 1968, under Rule 23-A, Seeds Inspector is duly bound to investigate the cause of the failure of the seeds by sending a sample of the lot to the seed Analyst for a detailed analysis in the State Seeds Testing Laboratory. Rule 23- A of the said Seed Rules is as under for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Commission:- "Rule-23-A"

 

Action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him:-

(1) If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks of labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complaint for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the state Seed Testing Laboratory. He shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the competent authority.

 

(2) In case, the Seed Inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standard notified by the Central Government, he shall launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act or these Rules."

4.           The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd Versus Sadhu and another reported as (2005) 3 SCC 198 has held that there has to be a specific report prepared by the Expert Committee" that the germination is not proper due to inferior quality of seeds. In the present case admittedly complainant has not produced any such report. Neither the complainant nor any agricultural officer has intimated regarding the said problem to the OPs. The report of agricultural dept. clearly state that the crop was damaged, however, nowhere it is mentioned that the seeds were of poor/inferior quality. The complainant in connivance with the employees of Agricultural Deptt. had made a false and fabricated report without cogent evidence because samples of premature crop was not sent to any Laboratory for proper analysis of seeds quality. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Ashok Kumar, Proprietor of the OPs-Company-M/s Aggarwal Seed Store as Annexure OP-A and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs. 
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by supplying defective seeds which resulted into damage of crop of the complainant thereby causing him financial loss and also mental agony and harassment, the OPs are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice.  
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the objections taken in the written version submitted that the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the seeds sold to him was actually of inferior quality. He further submitted that the report dated 20.04.2022, Annexure C-3 given by the officers of the Agriculture Department placed on record by the complainant cannot be relied upon because the same has been prepared in the absence of the OPs. 
9.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether the complainant has been able to prove his case or not. It may be stated here that to prove his case, the complainant is relying upon the report dated 20.04.2022, Annexure C-3 having been issued by the Officers of the D.D.A., Agriculture Department, Ambala wherein it has been opined that because instead of one flower it has been observed that 5 flowers have come on one plant in the field of the complainant therefore the quality of sunflower seed is bad; the seeds were not processed as per accurate norms; and the complainant has suffered complete loss of yield. Except this report, no other evidence has been placed on record by the complainant. However, in our  considered view this report dated 20.04.2022, Annexure C-3 given by the officers of the Agriculture Department is not   tenable in the eyes of law because they have not followed the instructions of Govt./higher authorities by not associating the OPs at the time of inspection of fields.  In the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. Vs. Ram Sarup CLT 2014-63 (NC), it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that report obtained without notice to the OP cannot be relied upon. Hence, the report dated 20.04.2022, Annexure C-3 relied upon by complainant is not legally binding upon the OPs.
10.           At the same time the complainant has also failed to place on record, report of any laboratory to ascertain that the seeds in question sold by OP No.1 to him were of inferior quality. In Devender Kumar & Ors Vs. Amsons Lab Private Ltd.& Ors. reported in CPJ 2014(IV) page 575 the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  has held that Complainants have not placed on record any laboratory report to substantiate that crops were damaged 100% due to application of pesticide-Report of Agriculture Development Officer only reveals that there was 100% damage to wheat crop-These officers have not carried out any test to ascertain whether 100% damage to wheat crop was due to application of purchased pesticides or not-Defects not proved. In case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Bhup Singh, in Revision Petition No.2144 of 2014, DOD: 9.4.2015, it is observed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, the germination of any kind of seed, is based on so many factors, such as, proper preparation of the land, fertilization, proper pesticides, proper irrigation, climate, and proper nourishment which again affected by seasonal vagaries which are not under the control of any human agency, for example, if there was no proper moisture in the land, there will not be proper germination. Lesser moisture or excess moisture affects the germination. Similarly, excessing use of fertilizer, also affects then, the climates such as, pouring of rain at proper time or improper time.  Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that without getting the seeds in question tested from appropriate laboratory, except physical inspection of the site, which was done in the absence of the OPs, it cannot be said that the seeds in question were of inferior quality/sub standard. Thus, the version of complainant alleging that the seed sold by OP No.1 was of inferior quality is not believable. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same. Parties are left to bear their own costs.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

         

Announced:- 19.01.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President