BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.343 of 2019.
Date of institution: 16.10.2019.
Date of decision:07.04.2021.
Rajesh Kumar, S/o Ram Kishan, Caste Ror, R/o Village Kaul, Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- M/s. Amar Seeds Company, Jind Road, Opp. Hafed Complex, Kaithal through its proprietor/partners.
- Davender Kumar, Seeds Seller Gate No.1, New Grain Market, Dhand, Distt. Kaithal.
- Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. P.S.Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Vijay Bagga, Advocate for the OP.No.1.
Sh. Subhash Walia, Adv. for the Op No.2.
Sh. Sushil Kumar, BAO Rep. for Op No.3.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with the averments that the complainant purchased 4 bags of paddy PR-114 @ Rs.350/- each for the total sum of Rs.1400/- and 3 bags of paddy PB-1509 @ Rs.600/- each for the total sum of Rs.1800/- and in this way, he purchased total paddy seeds of Rs.3200/- from the Op No.2 vide invoice No.315 dt. 07.05.2018. It is alleged that the complainant planted the paddy seeds in 15 acres of land and worked very hard in the agriculture field but the said paddy crop was totally damaged due to bad and expiry date seeds given by the Op No.2. The complainant called upon the Agriculture Officer to inspect his agriculture farm and asked him to report about his damaged paddy crops. The Agriculture Officer came to his field and made 95% damaged paddy crop report. It is further alleged that the above-said officer came to his field after 15/20 days inspite of sending message to the concerned department several times. The complainant made complaint to CTM Kaithal and Deputy Director Agriculture Kaithal on 05.03.2019. The officer of Agriculture Department send the message to the complainant to come in his office to get compensation from the seeds seller. The complainant told the above-said officer that the compensation of damaged crops should be at about Rs.13,00,000/- and the officer told the complainant that they will not in a position to give Rs.13.00 lacs of the damaged crops of 15 acres of land. The above-said Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal called the complainant on 05.03.2019 and gave him a fake and false report in collusion with the said Ops. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and filed the replies separately. Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of C.P.Act, 2019 has not been made in the present case; that the answering Op sold the said product of the same batch/lot to many other dealers/farmers who did not make any complaint till date. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ops No.2 and 3 filed their replies on the same line as followed by Op No.1 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C25 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW3/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R9 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op.No.1. The Op No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW4/A and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.3. The Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW5/A to RW8/A and documents Annexure-R10 to R-14 and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.2.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased 4 bags (10 Kgs. Quantity each) of paddy PR-114 @ Rs.350/- each for the total sum of Rs.1400/- and 3 bags (10 Kgs. Quantity each) of paddy PB-1509 @ Rs.600/- each for the total sum of Rs.1800/- and in this way, he purchased total paddy seeds of Rs.3200/- from the Op No.2 vide invoice No.315 dt. 07.05.2018 as per Annexure-C2. The first contention of the complainant is that firstly he moved application to the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Kaithal as per Annexure-C22 but no action has been taken by the Agriculture Department, Kaithal. Therefore, he moved the application to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal on 29.10.2018 regarding the crop ripen in four stages but became potas and the same was marked by the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal to the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Kaithal on 06.11.2018 and the team of Agriculture Department, Kaithal has inspected the fields of complainant after 10-15 days i.e. on 13.11.2018. We have perused the application moved by the complainant to Deputy Commission, Kaithal on 29.10.2018 and on 13.11.2018 the team of Agriculture Department, Kaithal inspected the fields of complainant, so, the said contention of complainant that the Agriculture Officers came to his field after 15/20 days has no force. We have perused the inspection report of Agriculture Department, Kaithal as per Annexure-C21, wherein it is mentioned that they inspected the fields of complainant but no paddy crop was found there as the same had already been harvested by the farmer/complainant.
8. From perusal of bill Annexure-C2, the lot/batch number of the paddy seed of 4 bags is mentioned as October/17-07-322-01 and paddy seed of 3 bags is mentioned as October-17-322-03. The aforesaid seeds were released in the market by its manufacturer for its sale after going through proper tests in the laboratory and the Ops have placed on file certificates Annexure-R1 regarding the lot number October/17-07-322-01 & Annexure-R2 regarding the lot number October-17-322-03 and the same lot number are mentioned on the bill Annexure-C2. In both the certificates Annexure R1 and Annexure R2, it is mentioned in the column of pure seed (Mini): 98%. So, the Ops have proved on the file that the paddy seed sold to the complainant was duly tested one. We found that the seed in question was pure seed upto 98%, it means that the seed in question which was tested was not sub-standard nor any other variety mixed in the batch numbers which are mentioned in the bill of purchased seed as per Annexure-C2. The complainant has failed to rebut the above-said reports Annexure R1 & Annexure R2 which were duly tested by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency (A State Government Undertaking). The complainant has contended that the crop has been damaged due to defective seed as per the photographs Annexure-C7 to Annexure-C15. No doubt, the crop seems to be damaged but the complainant failed to prove how the crop is damaged. So, the above-said photographs are not helpful to the complainant without any report of agriculture department or any other cogent evidence. The Op No.1 has also placed on file affidavits of some other persons namely Gurmail Singh, Ex.RW2/A and Narender Singh Ex.RW3/A. The aforesaid persons have stated in their affidavits that they had purchased the paddy seed PR-114 & PB-1509 from the dealer M/s. Mahindra Fertilizers, Dhand and the aforesaid paddy seed was very effective and due to its use, there was bumper crop and they are quite satisfied with the product. The complainant also purchased the same varieties of the paddy seeds i.e. PR-114 and PB-1509 as per Annexure-C2. We have also perused the application moved by the complainant to Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Kaithal for the compensation under Pardhan Mantri Bima Yojna as per Annexure-C22 from which it is clear that the complainant has reported the cause of loss due to water-flow (Jal-Bharav) in the fields of complainant and not for the reason of defective paddy seed. So, from the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is clear that the complainant has failed to prove on the file that the paddy seed purchased by him from the Op No.2 was of sub-standard or poor quality. In the present case, the complainant has taken the contrary stand, one the one hand, he has taken the plea that the paddy seed is defective one and on the other hand, the crop has been damaged due to water-flow. So, the complainant has failed to prove his case from all corners. Therefore, we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops for selling the seed in question.
9. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:07.04.2021. (D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
