Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/343

Resham Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aggarwal - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Mar 2019

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

       C. C. No.         343 of 2017

  Date of Institution :          13.10.2017

  Date of Decision :            06.03.2019

 

Resham Singh aged about 49 years son of Balwant Singh resident of Village Bhullar, Tehsil Bagha Puraran, District Moga.

   .....Complainant

Versus

M/S Aggarwal Seed Store, Old Grain Market, Kotkapura through its Prop/Partner/Manager.

                                    ....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Present:       Sh Jaswant Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Vipen Wadhawan, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP for selling substandard rice seeds and for seeking directions to OP to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for causing loss in crop production and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and for causing mental agony to complainant and harassment.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and he purchased paddy seeds worth Rs.1200/- from

cc no.-343 of 2017

OP vide bill no.9245 dated 5.05.2017 and sowed the same in his six and half acres of land and spent huge amount on pesticides, watering and for care of his crop. It is submitted that after few months, when crops were to prepare, he was astonished to note that about 20800 of some other quality of plants also grew alongwith paddy crop and complainant had to spent Rs.65,000/-in uprooting the same. Complainant reported the matter to Chief Agriculture Officer, Moga who visited the spot and gave opinion that instead of paddy, different plants have been grown in the land. Complainant approached OP and made several requests to them to compensate him for loss of his crop, but all in vain as they did not pay any heed to his requests. All this amounts to deficiency in service and due to supply of duplicate seeds by OP, complainant has suffered huge loss in crop production and suffered great harassment and mental agony. He has prayed for directing OP to pay Rs.1,50,000/-for loss in crop and Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17.11.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                On receipt of the notice, OP filed reply taking  objections that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts and even complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and is based on concocted facts. Complainant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 13 (1) (c) of the Act  as he has not got seeds in question analyzed from any appropriate laboratory. It as averred that yield or germination of crop depends on various factors from preparation of land upto plucking of crop i.e preparation, levelling, fertilizers, type of land, proper

cc no.-343 of 2017

irrigation, climate, seasonal conditions and methods of sowing etc and in complaint, complainant has not mentioned whether level of land is same everywhere in which alleged seeds were sown.  No expert evidence is brought on record by complainant and report of ADO is not the report of expert. Complainant has not followed the instructions and recommendations given by Punjab Agriculture University. It is admitted that complainant purchased two packets of seeds from them and at the time of purchasing the seeds, answering OP told complainant to that as per recommendations of PAU 6 to 8 kilograms of seeds per acre were required to be sown and complainant needed 52 kg seeds for his six and half acres of land, but complainant has not mentioned in complaint that how much quantity of seeds were purchased by him. It is further averred that OP have provided very good quality of seeds to complainant, but complainant has ignored the instructions and recommendations of PAU. As per PAU, 32-35 plants were required to be grown  per square meter, but labourer used to sow 18-20 plants per square meter and thereafter, to fill the gap, farmer himself sowed the other variety of plants and this was the prominent factor of mixing the seeds by complainant himself. Complainant himself sowed less seeds and he himself is at fault in sowing less seeds. It is further averred that as per OP, report of department is no report in the eyes of law and no notice was given to  them for inspection and it is prepared falsely in connivance with officials. Even no description of land is mentioned in the report and it is silent about killa number, khasra number. All the allegations of complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made. Moreover, complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties as complainant purchased the seeds in question from Lakshmi Agro Seed Centre, Kotkapura and

cc no.-343 of 2017

sold the same in large scale to different farmers, who got good result and yield from said seeds, but complainant has not impleaded Lakshmi Agro Seed Centre who is manufacturer of said seeds as party to complaint and therefore it is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It is further submitted that manufacture Lakshmi Agro Seed Centre sells the seeds after getting the seeds analysed from competent authority. Moreover, yield of crop depends on several factors such as seed treatment before sowing, method of sowing, weed control, irrigation methods, fertilizers application, land preparation and previous crop  residue and even application of seeds in proper way. Improper application of farming practices also affect the yield and in present case, complainant is negligent and careless in carrying out farming practices as he might not have applied proper farming practices as per recommendations of Punjab Agriculture University. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

5                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 11 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                           The ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Mukhtiar Singh Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Boota Singh Ex OP-3, affidavit of Mohinder Singh Ex OP-5, affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Ex Op-7, affidavit of Kuldeep Singh Ex OP-9, affidavit of Jaspreet Singh Ex Op-11, affidavit of Gurmail Singh Ex OP-13, affidavit of Nishant Bansal Ex OP-15, affidavit of Rajan Garg Ex OP-18, affidavit of Amit Jain EX OP-20, affidavit of Sahil Goyal Ex OP-

cc no.-343 of 2017

22, affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Ex OP 25 and documents Ex OP-2, 4,6,8,10,12,14,16, 17,19,21,23, and 24 and then closed the evidence.

 7                                We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

8                                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased paddy seeds from OP against proper for Rs.1,200/- and sowed the same in his six and half acres of land and spent huge amount on pesticides, watering and for care of his crop, but, when crops were to prepare, he was astonished to see that about 20800 of some other quality of plants also grew alongwith paddy crop and he spent Rs.65,000/-in uprooting the same. He reported the matter to Chief Agriculture Officer, Moga who after checking gave opinion that instead of paddy, different plants have been grown in his land. Complainant approached OP and made several requests to compensate for his crop loss, but OP did not do the needful, which amounts to deficiency in service and caused great harassment and mental agony to him. Prayer for accepting the present complaint is made. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 11.

9                               To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OPs averred that present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. No cause of action arises against them and it is devoid of any merits. Though it is admitted that complainant purchased said seeds from OP. It is argued that complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. It is further argued that no expert evidence is produced on record and even report of ADO is not the report of expert. Complainant has not followed

cc no.-343 of 2017

the instructions and recommendations given by Punjab Agriculture University. It is admitted that complainant purchased seeds from them and at the time of purchasing the seeds, answering OP told complainant to that as per recommendations of PAU 6 to 8 kilograms of seeds per acre were required to be sown and complainant needed 52 kg seeds for his six and half acres of land, but complainant has not mentioned in complaint that how much quantity of seeds were purchased by him. OP have provided very good quality of seeds, but complainant has ignored the instructions and recommendations of PAU. As per PAU, 32-35 plants were required to be grown  per square meter, but labourer used to sow 18-20 plants per square meter and thereafter, to fill the gap, farmer himself sowed the other variety of plants and this was the prominent factor of mixing the seeds by complainant himself. Complainant himself sowed less seeds and he himself is at fault in sowing less seeds. It is further argued  that report of department is no report in the eyes of law as notice was given to OP for inspection and it is prepared falsely in connivance with officials. Even no description of land is mentioned in the report and it is silent about killa number, khasra number. It is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties as complainant purchased the said seeds from Lakshmi Agro Seed Centre, Kotkapura, but complainant has not impleaded them in the array of OPs and therefore it is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Lakshmi Agro Seed Centre is manufacturer of said seeds and sells the seeds after getting the seeds analysed from competent authority. Moreover, Yield of crop depends on several factors such as seed treatment before sowing, method of sowing, weed control, irrigation methods, fertilizers application, land preparation and previous crop residue and even application of seeds in proper way. Improper application of farming practices also affect the yield and in present case,

cc no.-343 of 2017

complainant is negligent and careless in carrying out his farming practices as he might not have applied proper farming practices as per recommendations of Punjab Agriculture University. There is no deficiency in service on their part and all the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

10                                          We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The case of the complainant is that he purchased paddy seeds from OP and as per allegations of complainant seeds sold by OP were duplicate and were of some other kind, due to which complainant could not get desired yield and suffered loss in crop production. He has prayed for compensation on account of loss in yield suffered by him. In reply, OP have denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no expert evidence brought forward on record by complainant to prove his allegations regarding duplication of seeds. Ld counsel for OP brought our attention towards the document Ex OP-24 which is copy of Certificate given by Punjab State Seed Certification Authority, Kotkapura, wherein it is clearly mentioned that germination of seeds purchased by complainant is 86 % and these seeds are 99 % pure. Ex OP-24 is a document of vital importance as it leaves no doubt about the purity of seeds purchased by complainant. Report of Agriculture Development Officer which complainant has himself produced on record also reveals the point that mixing in the plant is 2.61%. Even on original bill label of seeds Ex C-10 placed on record by complainant, it is clearly mentioned that physical purity and germination power of product sold by OP is 98%. Thus, both the documents i.e label of seeds Ex C-10 and Report given by Agriculture Development Officer Ex C-5 depict the same result about the nature and quality of seeds. Both these

cc no.-343 of 2017

documents are in consonance with each other.  Ex C-10 is self explanatory and itself clears the point of OP that purity of seeds sold by them is 98 % and moreover, report of Agriculture Development Officer Ex C-5 also declares that mixing in seeds is upto 2.6 %. Moreover, 2 % of mixing has already been admitted by OP vide their label and they are transparent in dealing with farmers and have not concealed anything regarding purity of seeds manufactured by them. It is observed that as OP claims the purity of seeds as 98% and admitted the possibility of 2% mixing whereas the Agriculture Development Officer, in his report found mixing in seeds to the extent of 2.6 %, which is minor and is negligible and there seems to be no deficiency in service on the part of OP. OP have also placed on record affidavits and copies of bills Ex OP-1 to Ex OP-23 of other farmers who purchased seeds from them and obtained good yield. OP have produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove their case and authenticity of these documents is beyond any doubt. On the contrary complainant has nothing to say in this.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

11                               From the above discussion and keeping in view the documents and evidence placed on record by respective parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 6.03.2019

(Parampal Kaur)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                              President