Haryana

Jind

CC/109/2013

Raja alias Rajbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Anuj Beej Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Rakesh jain

11 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 109 of 2013
   Date of Institution: 20.5.2013
   Date of final order: 11.8.2016

Raja alias Rajbir s/o Sh. Ranbir Singh resident of village Dariyawala, Tehsil and District Jind. 
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
M/s Anuj Beej Bhandar through its Prop. Near Govt. Senior Secondary School, Shastri Market, Jind.
Manager Krishidhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Krishidhan Bhawan, D-3 to D-6 Addl. M.ID.C. area Aurangabad road, Jalan-431213 (Manufacturer of seed).  
                                                         …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    
    
Present: Sh. Rakesh Saini, Adv. for complainant.
             Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.1.
         Sh. D.P. Deshwal Adv. for opposite party No.2.
         
ORDER:
            The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant had purchased  4 packets of Sarson seeds for a  sum of Rs.1200/- vide  Bill No.570 dated 26.10.2012 from opposite party No.1, which is manufactured by opposite party No.2. The complainant sown the above said seeds in his 4 acres of land. After sowing it  in his fields the plants germinated of different types. There were no flowers come upon 
            Raja Vs. M/s Anuj Beej Bhandar etc.
                    …2…
the plants of Sarson nor any fruit/falli came upon the plants of sarson. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to Dy. Director Agriculture, Jind, the officials of Agriculture Department visited the field of complainant on 25.3.2013 and found that there were different type of plants  germinated upon them neither flowers nor fruits/fallies were present and thus 30% loss was clearly seen at the spot. Due to inferior quality of Sarson seeds, the complainant has suffered a huge loss. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  pay a sum of Rs.2,64,800/-  on account of losses  due to inferior quality of  sarson seeds as well as to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have  put in appearance and filed the separate  written statement. Opposite party No.1 stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and the complainant has got no  cause of action and  locus-standi to file the present complaint.  On merits, it is contended that the committee members who prepared the report are not eligible and are not seeds experts rather their working is limited upto crop management only. As per State Govt. specification the inspecting team must be comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department one representative of concerned Seed Agency and one Scientists of KGK/KVK/HAU but the above instruction of the Govt. has not been followed, so the report produced by the complainant is not correct. 
            Raja Vs. M/s Anuj Beej Bhandar etc.
                    …3…
The complainant does not identify the kind of land or any other particulars in which the mustard crop was allegedly sown by the complainant and has not placed the jamabandi and Khasra Girdwari on the file. The complainant has not got tested the seed from any laboratory. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. 
3.    Opposite party No.2 has contended that the official of Agriculture Department, Jind inspected the field of complainant on 25.3.2013 in the absence of opposite party and without giving any affordable opportunity to attend the field with the committee. No prior notice or intimation was given by the Department before inspecting the crop. The field inspection carried out by the Committee in violation of the principles of natural justice. The complainant has not mentioned necessary particulars as to Khata number/Khasara Number of the land in which he has sown the mustard seeds. The complainant also could not mention the batch/lot number of seeds  in which he has allegedly sown. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. 
4.    In evidence, the complainant has produced cash memo Ex. C-1, inspection report Ex. C-2, affidavit of complainant Ex. C-3, affidavit of Sh. Jitender Ex. C-4, affidavit of Himmat Singh Ex. C-5 and copy of jamabandi Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Anuj Ex. OP-1, copy of bill Ex. OP-2 and  copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex. OP-3 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.2 has produced  the affidavit 
            Raja Vs. M/s Anuj Beej Bhandar etc.
                    …4…
of Prakash Kumar Mishra, service executive Ex. OP-4 and Ex. OP-5, copy of letter dated  19.5.2010 Ex. OP-6, authority letter Ex. OP-7, copy of Resolution Ex. OP-8, copy of special power of attorney Ex. OP-9 and copy of Seed Analysis Report Ex. OP-10 and closed the evidence.  
5.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that he had purchased 4 packets of mustard seed from opposite party No.1 which was manufactured by opposite party No.2. After purchased of the mustard seed, the complainant sown the above said seed in his 4 acres of land. It is further argued that after growing up the mustard seed the complainant noticed that the seed quality of mustard was not of superior quality and there were different types of plants  and 30%  plants  have not given fruits/fallies and as such the complainant suffered a loss. The  official of Deputy Director Agriculture has also inspected the field of the complainant and observe that the germination of the mustard was less @ 30%.    
6.    On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties has argued that the complainant had purchased the mustard seed from them as per retail invoice Ex. C-1.The counsel for opposite parties further argued that the Committee of Members who have prepared the report are not sustainable in the eyes of law because they are not seed experts rather their working is limited up-to crop management only. Apart from this the Committee has not followed the State Govt. instructions as the Committee has not joined the representative of the opposite parties 
            Raja Vs. M/s Anuj Beej Bhandar etc.
                    …5…
during the inspection and as such without giving any affordable opportunity to the opposite parties to attend the field with the Committee, the report given by the Committee have  no value in the eyes of law. The counsel for the opposite parties further argued that for getting good yield, there are several external factors  responsible and the proper growth of crop always depends on proper agriculture of operations such as proper preparation of land, fertilization and use of pest and disease control medicine, proper irrigation, climate and seasonal conditions. It is further argued that the quality of the seeds cannot be ascertained simply by looking with the necked eyes. The sample of the seed alleged sown by the complainant had not been tested from the seed testing laboratory which is mandatory as per Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act.   Counsel for opposite parties further argued that the complainant has not filed any evidence from which it be ascertained that he has sown the Krishidhan mustard seed of variety Aishwarya Gold. Moreover the opposite party-company is a recognized  research institute by Govt. of India’s Ministry of Science and Technology Department New Delhi and all the lots before selling it in the market the quality of the seed checked in the laboratory. The counsel for opposite party No.2 has also relied upon the case laws titled as Haryana  Seed Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and others reported in 2005 (II) CPJ page 13 Supreme Court, Case titled Maharashtra Hybird seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Parchuri Naryana reported in CPJ 2009 (1) page 180 (NC) and case titled Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babu Ram reported in 
            Raja Vs. M/s Anuj Beej Bhandar etc.
                    …6…
CPJ 2005 (II) page 94 (NC). Wherein it is observe that- agriculture-seeds defective-no yield resulted-no loss of crops suffered-complaint allowed relying of reports of Advocate Commissioner and Agriculture Officer-quality of seeds ought to have been determine following procedure contemplated under Section 13 (1) ( c) not on basis of exemption and presumption-seeds supplied not defective proved  and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
7.    After hearing Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file in the present case the complainant has not filed any report regarding the inferior quality of mustard seed. Besides this the complainant has not moved an application before the Forum for testing of the seed of the same batch. The complainant has only filed the inspection report of his field prepared by the official of Agriculture Department, Haryana Ex. C-2.  We have perused the report Ex. C-2 which was prepared by the  3 official of the Agriculture Department without any independent witness/ representative of the opposite party. In the present case the Inspecting Committee has not followed the direction given by Director of Agriculture Haryana, Panchkula vide letter  dated 3.1.2002 Ex. OP-3 whenever the committee will inspect the field of the farmer then the field of the farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture department and one  representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/KVK, HAU and report will be submitted to this office immediately after inspection. The above said report has been prepared in the absence of the representative of the 
            Raja Vs. M/s Anuj Beej Bhandar etc.
                    …7…
agency. The Inspection Committee of the experts had not been constituted according to the instruction of the Govt. by the Agriculture Department. Apart this the report Ex. C-2 is silent as to the cause low yield due to the defective seed supplied to the complainant.  So the above said report is not binding upon the opposite parties. Hence, the above said report is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law.  There is no deficiency is established on the part of the opposite parties. 
8.    Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case against the opposite parties  and there is no merit in the complaint, therefore, the complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room. 
Announced on: 11.8.2016
                                 President,
          Member        Member     District Consumer Disputes                                           Redressal Forum, Jind

            Raja Vs. M/s Anuj Beej Bhandar etc.
                    

Present: Sh. Rakesh Saini, Adv. for complainant.
             Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.1.
         Sh. D.P. Deshwal Adv. for opposite party No.2.
         

            Arguments heard. To come up on 11.8.2016 for orders. 
                                President,
        Member       Member                DCDRF, Jind
                                  9.8.2016

Present: Sh. Rakesh Saini, Adv. for complainant.
             Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.1.
         Sh. D.P. Deshwal Adv. for opposite party No.2.
         
             Order announced, vide our separate order of even date. The complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                President,
    Member              Member                DCDRF, Jind
                                11.8.2016