Haryana

Karnal

CC/84/2020

Joginder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ajeet Seeds Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ankur Jindal

11 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 84 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.06.02.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:11.07.2022

 

Joginder Singh son of Shri Soran Singh, resident of village Labhkari, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Gul no.233, Chitegaon, Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad (Maharashtra) 431 105, through its authorized representative.

2.     M/s Aggarwal Seed Store, near Punjab National Bank, Radaur Road, Ladwa, through its proprietor.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik……Member 

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Lalit Kansal, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Mukul Sharma, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments complainant is a farmer and is having his agriculture land in Indri, District Karnal.  OP no.1 manufacturer of 1509 paddy seeds and the OP no.1 deals in sale of seeds and Pesticides. The complainant has purchased paddy seeds of PB-1509, vide bill no.8887 dated 14.05.2019 amounting to Rs.1000/-. OPs assured that they shall provide the seeds of good quality. After purchase the abovesaid seeds, the complainant sown the said seed in his three acres of land, but the crop of the complainant was not grown up properly and seeds so sold by the OPs was found to be substandard and as such complainant applied for preparing technical report to Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Karnal regarding the quality of seeds and after the inspection, it was found that the seeds so sold by OPs was not of PB-1509 and complainant suffered the losses to the extent of 35% to 45% in the crop and thus the complainant suffered losses worth lacs, due to the illegal act and conduct of OPs. Due to supply of inferior quality seed, complainant suffered loss of Rs.6,00,000/-.  Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 13.12.2019 by which complainant requested to make the payment of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony within 15 days, but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is denied that the seeds sold to the complainant by the OPs are of inferior quality. It is not within the knowledge of the OPs. It is pleaded that the complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and the Farmers Welfare Department on 25.09.2019. The said inspection report might have been prepared behind the back of representatives of the OPs and it is denied that representative of the OPs were present at the time of inspection. In fact, the Government Officers are bound to inform the concerned manufacturer and the agent for inspecting the so called land of the complainant. Even from the perusal of the inspection report, it is revealed that there is no Gut Number or Survey Number mentioned in the said report, similarly no boundaries of the so called field is mentioned in the said report. Similarly, the report does not enumerate or provide any details about the quality of seeds allegedly supplied to the complainant. It is further pleaded that the report and complainant does not show the exact date of sowing the paddy seeds. Therefore, it is denied that the crop was not of PB 1509 variety according to said report and it is further denied that the complainant suffered a loss of 35% to 45% in the market for lack strict poof regarding this estimation. It is further pleaded that complainant did not place on record the documents with regard to the expert opinion. The complainant, at no material point of time, approached to the OPs in respect of the alleged defect in the seed alongwith other villagers. Even there was no intimation to the OPs in respect of so called visit by the said Agriculture Officer, as such said report is not binding on the OPs. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of letter dated 16.10.2019 Ex.C1, copy of inspection report Ex.C2, copy of seller label produce of seeds Ex.C3, copy of bill dated 14.05.2019 Ex.C4, copy of Form J Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, copy of legal notice dated 13.12.2019 Ex.C7, postal receipt Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 24.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar proprietor Ex.OPE/A, copy of release order Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 25.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             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.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased paddy seeds PB-1509 and paid Rs.1900/- to the OP no.2 and complainant had sown the said seed in his three acres of land, but the crop of the complainant had not grown up properly and he filed complaint before Deputy Director Agriculture Officer, Karnal and Farmer Welfare Department, Karnal for the inspection of the crop. The authorities concerned constituted a committee and inspection committee visited the site on 26.09.2019 and prepared the inspection report. In the report the inspection committee has mentioned that on seeing the crop at first instance, the present growing crop is not of PB 1509 and there is probability of the loss to the extent of 35% to 45% and prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that the inspection report dated 26.09.2019 prepared behind the back of representative of the OP. Infact, the Government Officers are bound to inform the concerned manufacturer and the agent for inspecting the abovementioned land of the complainant. He further argued that from the perusal of the inspection report, it is revealed that there is no Gut Number or Survey Number mentioned in the said report, similarly, the report does not enumerate or provide any details about the quality of seeds allegedly supplied to the complainant. He further argued that the said report cannot be considered as a truth in support of the contentions of the complaint. The report as well as the complaint both do not show the exact date of sowing the paddy seeds. It is denied that the quality of PB 1509 seeds are inferior according to the said report. The defect in the seeds with regard to the genetic purity can only be decided on sending the alleged seed to the laboratory for testing the same for the percentage of purity as such, the complaint cannot be maintainable for deciding the genetic purity of the seed, in absence of report from the laboratory, nobody had come to the correct conclusion in respect of defect in the seed. Learned counsel for the OPs relied upon the authorities in case titled as Somnath Kashinath Ghodse Versus Vilas Gangaram Jattap and another MANU/QT/0026/2009; Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babu Ram MANU/CF/0028/2005 and American Hybrid Seeds and Anr. Versus Vijay Kumar Shankarrao and Anr. MANU/CF/0307/2005 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

11.                  It is evident from the cash memo Ex.C4 dated 14.05.2019 that the complainant has purchased paddy seeds of PB-1509 from the OP no.2 and has paid amount of Rs.1900/-. Complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee on 26.09.2019 and prepared its report Ex.C2. In the said report it has been mentioned that on seeing the crop, at first instance, the present growing crop is not of PB 1509 and there is probability of the loss to the extent of 35% to 45% to the farmer.                      

12.           The OP has taken a plea that the agriculture report prepared by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, in the absence of representative of the OPs, is not admissible in the eyes of law.  In this regard, we are fortified with the observations in case titled as Somnath Kashinath’s case (supra) wherein it is held that there no representative of seed producing company and representative of dealer. So, the inspection carried out on the field of the complainant was defective one. As per Government Resolution all committee members were not available and manufacturing company and dealer were not representing. Hence, in view of the observation of the abovesaid judgment the agriculture report produced by the complainant Ex.C2 regarding the defective seed which prepared in the absence of the OPs has no weightage

13.           The next plea taken by the OPs is that there is not even a single complaint regarding the alleged dispute i.e. defected seeds except the present complaint. To prove its case OPs have placed on record seed testing report/Release order Ex.OP1 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the range of germination of the seed PB-1509 has been shown 87.75% i.e. normal while Genetic Purity percentage shown as 98.57%. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no probability of defect in seeds on the part of the OPs. Hence, it is well proved that seeds sold by OPs were not inferior quality at the time of selling.  Rather, complainant has also failed to examine any other farmer who had also purchased the same variety seeds from the OPs  and had any complaint with regard to inferior quality of seeds.

14.           The onus to prove his case lies upon the complainant, but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant has relied upon the inspection report Ex.C2. On perusal of the same, inspection committee has mentioned that there is probability of the loss to the extent of 35% to 45%. Hence, we are of the considered view that the inspection committee is not sure of the loss in the fields of complainant. Furthermore, said report is prepared without following the due process, as per the notification of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dated 03.01.2002. Hence, plea taken by the OPs has no force.

15.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merits in the present complaint 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: 11.07.2022

 

                                                                President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member