BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no.152/2016.
Date of instt.03.06.2016.
Date of Decision:27.11.2017.
Rohtash son of Bhale Ram, resident of Sudkain Khurd, Tehsil Narwana, Distt. Jind.
..Complainant.
Versus
1.M/s Chandi Ram and Sons, Mirch Mandi Road, Near Railway Bridge, Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad through its Proprietor /Partner.
2.Nuziveed Seeds Ltd. Godown No.22 Teja Sirsa Road, Behind Hotel Highway, 4th Mile Stone Hisar, 2nd Address SCO No.186, 2nd Floor Red Square Market, Hisar.
..Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present : Sh.Rajender Jandli, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.R.K.Goyal, Advocate for the OP No.1.
OP No.2 already ex-parte.
ORDER
The complainant Rohtash has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs).
2. Brief facts of the present complaint are that that complainant in order to get high yield of crops purchased 110 kg. seed of paddy of N.P. 121 FL variety vide Invoice No.22952 dated 19.05.2015 in a sum of Rs.12,100/- from OP No.1. The complainant made a payment of Rs.12,100/- in cash to OP No.1. OP No.2 is manufacturer of the seed and as such the complainant is consumer of OPs as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. It is further submitted that while selling the said seeds to the complainant the Ops had assured that the seeds sold by him to the complainant are of very fine quality and the same as certified and will give at-least 90 Maunds of paddy crop from one acre of land. It is further submitted that while sowing the seeds in his 21 acres of land situated in village Sudkain Khurd, District Jind, the complainant had followed all the instructions of Ops for sowing the seed well in time and thereafter followed the instructions of OPs regarding watering and putting manure etc. It is also further submitted that complainant is a progressive farmer and has experience of proper agriculture practices.
4. It is further submitted that after plantation of the paddy in his field it was noticed by the complainant that there is no fruit and flower on some of the plants and there are sub-standard fruits on the other plants. From the naked-eye it appeared that the seeds supplied by the OPs are of a sub-standard quality and growth of the plants was uneven. The crop in the adjoining fields was much better than the crop of the complainant. Therefore the complainant approached the Op no.1 with a request to visit the fields of the complainant to see the uneven growth of the paddy plants. But the OP No.1 avoided the matter on one pretext or the other and did not visit the field.
5. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainant approached Divisional Agriculture Officer, Narwana and moved an application to him on 14.09.2015. The Team of Agriculture Expert visited the fields of the complainant and made an inspection of the paddy crop in question. The Team of Agriculture Expert vide report dated 30.09.2015 observed that there are 15% to 18% off type of plants in the fields.
6. It is further submitted by the complainant that in this way the OPs has cheated the complainant by selling the substandard seeds and on account of the same the complainant has suffered huge loss. The complainant repeatedly asked the Ops for making payment of Rs.2,10,000/- along-with interest on account of loss suffered by him due to substandard seed supplied by the Ops. However the OPs did not adhere to the request of the complainant and flatly refused to make the payment. The above said act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled to get a payment of Rs.2,10,000/- on account of loss suffered by him along-with compensation. Hence, the present complaint.
7. On being served OP No.1 appeared and filed an application for impleading Nuziveed Seeds Ltd., Hisar as a party as the seed in question was purchased by OP No.1 from the above said company. Learned counsel for the complainant gave a statement that he has no objection in case the above said company is allowed to be impleaded as a party. Therefore the above said company was impleaded as Op No.2 vide order dated 22.08.2016. However despite proper service Op No.2 did not appear and same was proceeded ex-parte on 20.09.2016.
8. OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to concealment of material facts, maintainability, cause of action, negligence on the part of complainant himself etc. have been raised.
9. On merits, it is submitted that the report dated 30.09.2015 of the SDO Agriculture, Narwana is not admissible being not as per the instructions issued by the Director of Agriculture Haryana vide letter bearing No.52-70 dated 03.02.2002 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the fields of the complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of the agriculture department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientists of KGK/KVK/HAU. However in the present case neither any representative of the seed producing agency nor any scientist of KGK/KVK/HAU was called for inspection and verify the truthfulness of the allegations levelled by the complainant. Therefore the complaint on the basis report dated 30.09.2015 is without any merit. It is also further submitted that the OP no.1 had sold 4160 bags of 5 kg each of seed during season but even a single complaint regarding the quality from any of the consumers was received. Therefore the allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless. It is also further submitted that the growth of plants and yield of crop depends upon so many factors such as time of sowing of seed, preparing nursery, plantation, climate, fertilizer quality of soil and use of insecticides and pesticides. Op No.1 further prayed for dismissal of the complaint being without any merit.
10. In evidence the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW1 along-with documents as Annexure C1 to Annexure C4. On the other hand Sh.Naresh Kumar filed an affidavit on behalf of Op No.1. The OP no.1 also tendered in evidence documents Annexure R2 to R4 and closed the evidence.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant in has arguments contended that the paddy seed sold by the Op no.1 to the complainant was substandard and of mixed variety. On account of the same he has suffered a huge financial loss. In support of his contention the counsel relied upon the inspection report dated 30.09.2015 (Annexure C2) of the Officers of Agriculture Department, Haryana who after inspection of the field of the complainant observed that 15% to 18% Off type plants were present in the field. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the OPs has cheated the complainant by supplying the substandard and mixed variety of seeds which amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant and further prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
12. On the other hand the learned counsel for the OPs in his arguments reiterated the averments made in the complaint and further contended that undisputedly the petitioner had not got the seed in question tested from any laboratory as required under the provisions of Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In absence of the same it cannot be held that the seed supplied to the complaint was substandard or of mixed variety. It is further contended that the inspection report Annexure C-2 nowhere shows that seed sown by the complainant was defective. It is also further contended that the inspection conducted by the team of Agriculture Department was not in accordance with the circular of the Agriculture Departments, Haryana dated 03.02.2002. Therefore the inspection report Annexure C-2 is of no value and the same cannot be relied upon. It is further contended that the deficiency in, yield of crop cannot be attributed to the quality of the seed alone and other factors i.e. high salt consideration, sowing method, quality of soil, climate condition and irrigation facilities also effects the yield of a crop. In support of his contention the learned counsel for Op No.1 relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Haryana Seed Development Corporation Vs. Sadhu Ram 11(2003) CPH13 (SC).
13. We have examined the entire material placed on the record of present case and have also duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the seed in question was purchased by the complainant from Op no.1 and Op No.2 is manufacturer of said seed. The team of Agriculture Department after inspection of the field on 21.09.2015 has observed that there were 15% to 18% of off Type plants in the field.
14. It is very clear from the above said report made by the agricultural experts that the complainant has been able to create a high degree of probability of deficiency on the part of OPs in supplying the seed to the complainant. Therefore the onus of proof shifted to the OPs to prove that the seeds manufactured by them were free from any defect. A perusal of the entire record reveals that the OPs have not produced any evidence or certificate of the competent authority to prove that the seed sold to the complainant was free from any defect. The OPs have failed to explain that the seed sold to the complainant was of sound quality. The OPs could have very well produced their own technical experts to prove that there was nothing wrong with the quality of seeds produced by them. In the absence of the same the report of agricultural expert, has to be relied upon. Moreover the members of team are officers of Government and have no interest involved in the matter. Therefore their report cannot be brushed aside in absence of any contrary opinion of approved laboratory.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr,11(2012) CPJ 1(SC) has observed that it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them and they were not in a position to send the seeds for analysis. In order to prove that the seeds sold to the complainants were sub-standard/defective, the petitioner could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory, which it had failed to do so. No adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant on the ground of his having not sent the sample of seeds for testing to the laboratory. The complainant led the evidence of the State’s Agricultural Department in respect of his case, who also deposed before the District Forum after seeing the crop in the fields. The onus passes on the petitioner to prove that the seeds, which were used were not defective, which he had failed to do so. In the above said case the Hon’ble National Commission has further observed as follows:-
15. “In some of these cases, the District Forums had appointed agricultural experts as Court Commissioners and directed them to inspect the fields of the respondents and submit report about the status of the corps. In one or two case the court appointed the Advocate Commissioner with liberty to him to avail the services of agricultural experts for ascertaining the true status o the crops. The reports of the agricultural experts produced before the District Forum unmistakably revealed that the crops had failed because of defective seeds/foundations seeds. After examining the reports the District Forum felt satisfied that the seeds were defective and this is the reason why the complaints were not called upon to provide samples of the seeds for testing the same analyzed/ tested in an appropriate laboratory. In our view, the procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and the appellant cannot seek annulment of well-reasoned orders passed by three Consumer Forums on the specious ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act had not been followed.”
16. In case titled as A Raghavamma & Anr. Vs. A.Chenchamma & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 136 a three judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a complainant is able to create a high degree of probability of deficiency on the part of the opposite party, the onus would shift on to the opposite party (the defendant) to discharge the onus to prove his denial.
17. The submission made by learned counsel for the OPs that the report dated 30.09.2015 cannot be read in evidence as the fields have not been inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana with regard to constitution of inspection team is not tenable. In case any lapse has been committed by the Agriculture Department in constitution of the team in that eventuality the complainant cannot be held liable for the same and the complainant cannot be allowed to suffer on account of lapse, if any on the part of Agriculture Department. We thus hold that the report of officials of Agriculture Department Annexure C2 can very well be read in evidence. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Dharam Pal & Sons and others Vs. Som Parkash II (2014) CPJ 703 (NC) wherein it has been held that Seeds-Defects Loss suffered-Inspection of field-Deficiency in service-Unfair trade practice- District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission dismissed appeal- Hence, revision- As per report complainant had suffered loss in his paddy crop to the extent of 50 % on account of substandard quality of seeds sold to by him OPs. There is nothing to lable it as any ill-will by members of joint inspection team and seller of seed-Deficiency proved-Compensation awarded. Moreover, there is nothing on the file to show that the officers while giving the report Annexure C2 were partial and the plea qua collusion of the Agriculture Officers with the complainant is also rejected.
17. It is also pertinent to discuss here that it has been categorically observed by the team of expert vide its inspection report that 15% to 18& off types plants were present in the fields. We are of the considered opinion that presence of off type of plants in the paddy field in question can only be attributed to the impurity of seeds and other factors i.e. climatic conditions, quality of soil, irrigation facilities, manure, use of pesticide or insecticide cannot be held responsible for off type of plants of paddy. Therefore the contention of the OPs that the other factors apart from quality of seeds are also responsible for less yield of crop is not applicable in the present case.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the considered view that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of the OPs in rendering service to him.
13. Resultantly the present complaint is accepted and the OPs are directed to make a payment of Rs.1,50,000/- in lump-sum on account of loss suffered by complainant due to substandard/impure seed supplied by the OPs. The OPs are further directed to make a payment of Rs.8,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and litigation charges suffered by the complainant. The compliance of this order shall be made within 30 days. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM Dt.27.11.2017
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal)
Member Member
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
