Haryana

Karnal

253/2013

Lakhpat Saini S/o Rula Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Arya Beej Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Sharma

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.253 of 2013

                                                              Date of instt. 27.5.2013

                                                               Date of decision:27.04.2016

 

Lakhpat Saini son of Shri Rula Ram Saini, resident of village Samora, tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. M/s Arya Beej Bhandar, shop no.06, New Subji Mandi, Seed Market, Karnal, through its proprietor/partner.

2. Tycoon Seed Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Khasra no.894, near Sheela Buwa Mandir, New Extend Lal Dora, Government Seed Farm Road, Alipur, Delhi, 110036.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:      Sh.Naveen Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Virender Sachdeva Advocate for opposite parties.

 

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that on 30.12.2012 he purchased 40 Kgs of TYCOON Pea seed from opposite party no.1 @ of Rs.140/- per kilogram, for an amount of Rs.5600/-, vide bill no.570 dated 30.10.2012. He had sown the said seed in his agricultural land measuring 1.5 acre. When the crop started growing, he found that there were 40%  Materi plants instead of Pea, meaning thereby the Pea seed manufactured by the opposite party no.2 and sold by opposite party no.1 was of inferior quality and mixed with the seed of Materi. Thereafter, his son moved an application before Horticulture Development Officer, Karnal, who constituted a team. His crop was inspected by the said team on 15.2.2013 and it was found that there was Materi adulteration approximately 35 to 40%. Thus, he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2 Lacs on account of supplying adulterated pea seed to him by the opposite party no.1. He demanded damages from the opposite parties, but to no effect. Ultimately, he got served legal notice upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. By supplying the inferior quality seed the opposite parties committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused to him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is bad for non-compliance of provision of section 13(1)( c) of the Consumer Protection Act, Rule 23A of Seed Rules 1974 and Instructions issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 3.1.2002: that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and that the complicated questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the remedy for the complainant is Civil Court only.

                   On merits, the factum of sale of Pea Seed by opposite party no.1 has not been disputed. It has been submitted that the product which was supplied to the complainant was of the best quality. The company sold more than 2-2.5 lac acre’s seed in Haryana, but no such type of complaint was received from any part of the Haryana. Opposite parties are still ready to get the seed retested from any laboratory of Haryana State. It has further been pleaded that as per recommendation of agriculture department 40kilograms seed has been recommended for one acre, but the complainant had sown 40 kilograms seed in 1.5 acre. Thus, he used the less seed in his field. There is no evidence that he adopted the proper practice of procedure for use of the Pea seed. There might be several reasons for not getting maximum yield by the complainant from the seed purchased from opposite party no.1. No laboratory test report has been produced by the complainant to show that the seed supplied by the opposite party no.1 was having Materi seed mixed. The team of the Agriculture Department did not give any notice to the opposite parties before inspecting the field of the complainant, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such report. There was neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C5 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Ashok Kumar Proprietor Ex.OP1, affidavit of J.P. Singh Ex.OP2/A and document Ex.OP1/A have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant had purchased 40 kilograms TYCOON Pea Seed from opposite party no.1 for Rs.5600/- vide bill Ex.C1. On 30.12.2012. He had sown the said seed in his agricultural land measuring 1.5 acre, but when the crop grew up it was found that there were Materi plants in the crop. He got his field inspected from the team constituted by District Horticulture Development Officer, Karnal, who submitted report, the copy of which is Ex.C3. According to the said report the germination of the seed was very good and the crop stand was normal, but (materi) adulteration near about 35 to 40% was found. Reasons for materi plants were also given in the report as under:-

1. Adulteration of materi seed in Pea crop seed

2. No grain in pods in materi plants.

3. Materi plants height near about 4 to 5 feet.

4. It is a case of mechanical mixture of materi (weed plant) which is very similar to its another member of Legumenacy family. At the time of seed threshing & packing both the seed of the crop were mixed due to lack of knowledge & not follow the guidelines for seed packing.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties has laid emphasis on the contention that the complainant did not keep sample of the seed purchased by him for getting tested the same from some authorized laboratory. No notice of the inspection of the field of the complainant, by the team constituted by District Horticulture Development Officer Karnal was given to the opposite parties, as per instructions issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana, vide letter dated 3.1.2002. No written complaint was made by the complainant to the opposite parties regarding inferior quality of the seed even after, the report of the team of Horticulture Department till the crop existed in the field. Therefore, the report of the Horticulture team alone cannot be formed the basis for arriving at the conclusion that the seed sold by opposite party no.1 to the complainant was of inferior quality and the same contained mixed materi seed.

8.                The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the opposite parties cannot be accepted under the circumstances of the present case. The complainant had purchased seed from opposite party no.1 on 30.10.2012. The crop in his field was inspected by the team of Horticulture Department on 15.2.2013. The said team was constituted by District Horticulture Development Officer Karnal on the application moved in that regard by Satpal son of the complainant. As per the report Ex.C3 there was no defect in the seed regarding germination and the crop stand was also normal. However, adulteration about 35 to 40% of materi plants was found. Reasons for mixture of the materi plants in the Pea seed were also given in the report. It is pertinent to mention that neither in the report it was reported that materi plants grew up in the field of the complainant as weeds due to natural process nor the opposite parties led any evidence in this regard. There is no evidence on record which may show that the proper procedure for sowing the seed was not adopted by the complainant and on account of that materi plants could grow in the field. Undoubtedly, no notice was given to the opposite parties by the complainant or the inspection team before inspecting the field but the report cannot be discarded merely on this ground. The report was prepared by Horticulture Development Officer, Karnal, Horticulture Development Officer Indri and Assistant Project Officer Karnal and the same was countered signed by District Horticulture Officer Karnal. There could be no reason for these Government Officers to give false report regarding the crop existing in the field of the complainant. Even otherwise, there is no material on record to rebut the said report. The report is detailed regarding existing condition of the crop in the field of the complainant and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, from the evidence on record it is established that the field of the complainant in which he had sown the TYCOON pea seed purchased from opposite party no.1, materi plants to the extent of 35 to 40% were found, meaning thereby, materi seed was mixed with the pea seed.

9.                The complainant had sown the seed in the land measuring 1.5 acres. Due to materi plants he had suffered  loss on account of low yield of pea crop. The document  Ex.OP1/A shows that the average yield of pea crop remains 15 to 22 quintals per Hectare. Complainant could get average yield of 9 quintals of pea from his 1.5 acre land. On account of materi plants the yield could be less approximately to the extent of 1/3^rd. Thus, the complainant suffered loss of about three quintals of pea crop on account of materi seed mixed with pea seed. There is no evidence as to what was the rate of pea crop per quintal in March/April 2012. In the absence of any definite evidence, the loss is to be assessed on the basis of approximation.

10.              Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, it would be justified to consider that the complainant suffered loss of Rs.15,000/- due to mixed variety of seed sold to him by opposite party no.1.

11.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant  as compensation due to less yield in his field on account of materi seed mixed with the pea seed purchased by him from opposite party no.1, which was packed by opposite party no.2. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 27.4.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member