Haryana

Ambala

CC/56/2023

PARDEEP SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DASHMESH KHETI CENTRE. - Opp.Party(s)

SH H.S MAAN.

22 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	56 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	10.02.2023
Date of decision	:	22.07.2024

 

Pardeep Singh Son of Shri Ranjeet Singh, Resident of VPO Jatwar, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, Haryana.

……. Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. Dashmesh Kheti Centre, Near Bus Stand, Chajju Majra, District Ambala, through its proprietor.

 

2. Bayer Bio Science Pvt. Ltd., Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (West) Maharashtra-400607, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                      Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Harinder Singh Maan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                  Shri Munish Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.                                                                                                                                  Shri Sandeep Bakshi, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.14 lacs as compensation towards the damaged crop alongwith 12% interest from the month of May 2022.
2. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

 

2.             The facts in brief are that the complainant is the permanent resident of the above mentioned address and is an agriculturist by profession and having agriculture land measuring 12 Acres in his name. OP No.2  is the Manufacturer/ Producer of the Swift Gold Seeds of Paddy and the OP No.1 is the Distributor of the OP No.2. On 11.05.2022 the complainant has purchased 10 packets of Swift Gold Seeds of Paddy weighing 3 Kgs. each in total 30 Kgs. vide bill/invoice No.357 dated 11.05.2022 from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.8,700/- for sowing the same in his 12 acres of land. OP No.1 at the time of delivering the above said seeds to the complainant assured that the seed is of high quality and would give a bumper crop to the complainant and on the the assurance of the OP No.1 the complainant purchased the said seeds. The  complainant has sown the said seeds on 18.06.2022 to 25.06.2022 in his 12 acres of land and after some days the complainant observed that the seeds were not grown up. The complainant kept on seeing for next 4-5 days but the seeds were still not grown up. Upon this, the complainant immediately reported the matter to the OP No.1 who further reported the same to the company/the OP No.2. Thereafter an employee of the OP No.2 visited the fields of the complainant who did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant reported the said matter to SDO Agriculture, Naraingarh, District Ambala and a team has visited the spot on 21.09.2022 and inspected the crops. The said team found that the plants of paddy have not been grown properly and found affected with the disease blite and only 2-3 qtl. per acre crop estimated to be produced from the fields of the complainant. The said inspecting team gave a report dated 21.09.2022 regarding the existing position of the crop and observed a big economic loss to the crop of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant again approached the OPs and told about the inspection report dated 21.09.2022 which has been given by the Agriculture Department after inspecting the fields of the complainant and requested them to compensate him for the loss suffered due to inferior quality of seeds but to no avail. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, no locus standi and cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that opposite party No.1 is the proprietorship firm under the name and style M/s Dashmesh Kheti Centre and it is a shop of agriculture seeds and not a distributorship firm. The seeds were sold to the complainant as per his demand. The complainant never turned up with any complaint after purchase of the said seeds.  OP No.2 needs to be contacted qua the quality of seeds in question. As per report of the Agriculture Department, the loss which the farmer has suffered, is likely due to the grass stent virus or Phytoplasma Bacteria. It has not been reported by the experts that the seeds sold to the complainant were defective or inferior. Rest of the averments of the complainants were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that to the effect that the present complaint has been filed on the false & frivolous grounds which do not exist at all; the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to dismissed as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant etc. On merits, it has been stated that as per report of the Agriculture Department, the loss which the farmer is likely due to the grass stent virus or Phytoplasma Bacteria. Phytoplasmas are obligate bacterial parasites of plant phloem tissue and of the insect vectors that are involved in their plant to plant transmission. Similarly grass stent virus exists in the vector and in the rice crop. Brown planthopper nymphs and adults transmit it where rice is grown year-round. RGSV is generally endemic. The macropterous forms or the long winged adults of the insect are important in spreading the disease than the short winged forms. They feed on the diseased plant for at least 30 minutes to pick-up the virus. Neither the Agriculture Department nor the complainant himself issued any notice either verbally or in writing to OP No.2 before inspecting the field of the complainant or before submitting the report regarding the losses suffered by the complainant, if any on account of any alleged defect in the paddy seed allegedly used by the complainant for his Crop. The procedure prescribed U/s 38(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is mandatory has not been followed by the Agriculture Department. No complaint/intimation was ever sent by the complainant to OP No.2 about the quality of the seeds and its adverse effects on the germination of the seeds before filing the present complaint. The alleged inspection of field of complainant conducted by said Officers is defective one because of the fact that as per directions issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana vide its letter dated 03.01.2002 the fields of complainant/farmers should have been inspected by a committee comprising two officers of agriculture department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and report will be submitted, thereafter. From the report of the Agriculture Department, it is quite evident that no efforts have been made to join either the representative of the seed agency, the scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU, or the representatives of OP No.2, hence, the present inspection report cannot be relied upon, which is violative of Government Instructions. Moreover, vide letter dated 18.03.2009, the Director Agriculture Haryana again wrote to all Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State to strictly follow those instructions. It was also written that in case any inspection in future is not done as per these instructions, the whole responsibility lies with them. The directions issued by Director of Agriculture vide letter dated 03.01.2002 still exists and those directions have so far neither been modified nor withdrawn by the Director of Agriculture. Bare perusal of the inspection report of Agriculture Department, it is nowhere concluded that the less germination of the Paddy Seeds/small size of plants/ small size of cereals grains was on account of the defective seeds only. The inspection report clearly indicates that the loss to the farmers may be due to the grass stent virus or Phytoplasmas Bacteria for which the farmer has not taken preventing steps by using appropriate insecticide/pesticide. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon OP No.2 regarding the loss suffered by the complainant. Proper germination of the paddy seeds & good crop is always dependent upon not only of the quality of the seeds but also depends upon so many other factors like quality & quantity of the seeds, quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer, quality of pesticides used by the farmer & weather conditions prevailing at the relevant time. The complainant has failed to point out in the complaint about the other factors & their effectiveness. Seeds are always manufactured by manufacturing companies by batch process. Each batch contains Quintals of seeds. M/s Bayer Bio Science Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of the said seed, which is engaged in this manufacturing process since last so many years and the product being sold by it are popular amongst the farmers due to their high quality. The products manufactured by it are thoroughly analyzed by the technically expert and highly qualified specialists in the laboratories of the manufacturer company, which are equipped with the modern equipment and machineries. These products are allowed for the sale only after they pass the strict quality control analysis procedure and found according to the specification. Therefore, there is no possibility of any loss by using the said product in accordance with the prescribed process. Similarly the present product which was also analyzed on 18.04.2022 before sending into the market for sale had passed the quality test & thereafter the same was sent in the market. Copy of the lab test report dated 13.03.2023 (test date 18.04.2022) is annexed herewith as Annexure OP-2/6 and copy of instructions for use are appended herewith as Annexure OP-2/7. The complainant has miserably failed to prove his ownership/Tenancy & possession on the land measuring 12 acres on which he allegedly sown the seeds because he did not produce any Khasra Girdawari showing his possession and cultivation on the said land at relevant time to prove that the seed which he has purchased vide invoice no. 357, dated 11.05.2022, was in fact sown in the said land which allegedly later on proved to be defective. The complaint is completely silent about the 'method of application' of alleged product, if proven to be used, i.e. when and in what manner they were used, what was the disease in the complainant's crop & what type of pesticide was sprayed by him & at whose instance. The complainant, thereby, concealed this vital information which establishes that the alleged product, if proven to be used, was not used in accordance with the method recommended and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the complainant's own negligence and his own wrongs. Environmental conditions i.e. the climate and weather conditions at the time of application of any product plays vital role for getting the desired results but in the instant matter the complainant has deliberately concealed this material fact from his complaint. Rest of the averments of the complainants were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/1A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Gurjant Singh, Proprietor of OP No.1-M/s Dashmesh Kheti Centre at near Bus Stand Chajju Majra, Jatwar, District Ambala as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP1/1 & OP-1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Abhinav Sankhyan, working as Commercial Manager & Responsible Person for Crop Protection Business from Bayer Bio Science Godrej Eternia, Plot No.70, 3^rd Floor, Tower B, E3-CDE, Industrial Area Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002 as Annexure RW2/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP2/1 to OP-2/10 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by supplying defective seeds which resulted into damage of sunflower crops of the complainant thereby causing him financial loss and also mental agony and harassment, as such, the OPs are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice.  
8.           On the other hand, learned counsels for OPs No.1 and 2 while reiterating the objections taken in the written version submitted that as per report of the Agriculture Department the loss which the farmer is likely to suffer be due to the grass stent virus or Phytoplasma Bacteria. He further submitted that it is evident from the report of the Agriculture Department that the farmer has not used the appropriate pesticide to prevent the deterioration of his crop from the grass stent virus or Phytoplasmas Bacteria. He further submitted that neither the Agriculture Department nor the complainant himself issued any notice either verbally or in writing to the OPs before inspecting the field of the complainant or before submitting the report regarding the losses suffered by the complainant, if any on account of any alleged defect in the paddy seed allegedly used by the complainant for his Crop. He further submitted that the procedure prescribed U/s 38(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is mandatory has not been followed by the Agriculture Department and without that it could not be possibly opined that the seeds purchased by the complainant was defective and that the loss if any suffered by the complainant was on account of the seeds purchased by the complainant. He further submitted that no complaint/intimation was ever sent by the complainant to the OPs about the quality of the seeds and its adverse effects on the germination of the seeds before filing the present complaint. He further submitted that the alleged inspection of field of complainant conducted by the said experts/Officers is defective one because of the fact that as per directions issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana vide its letter dated 03.01.2002 that the fields of complainant/farmers should have been inspected by a committee comprising two officers of agriculture department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and report will be submitted, thereafter. He further submitted that Proper germination of the paddy seeds & good crop is always dependent upon not only of the quality of the seeds but also depends upon so many other factors like quality & quantity of the seeds, quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer, quality of pesticides used by the farmer & weather conditions prevailing at the relevant time.
9.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether the complainant has been able to prove their cases or not. It may be stated here that to prove his case, the complainant is solely relying upon the report dated 03.10.2022, Annexure C-2 and C-3 having been issued by the Officers of the Agriculture Department, Ambala wherein it has been opined that after inspection on the spot, it was found that the plants are of dwarf size, in which there is no possibility of grain formation. Only in some areas pimples appeared (small pores) on the earrings/plants which are of very small size. The dwarfism/small size of plants can be caused by grass stunt virus or phytoplasma bacteria. Whereas the plea of the OPs is that no reliance can be placed on the said report because no notice regarding inspection of the crop by the Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ambala was received by them and the inspection was done in their absence. In the case of Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company and Anr. II 2013 CPJ  NC, it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the report of agriculture department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating the OPs with inspection. Further in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited Vs. Ram Sarup CLT 2014-63 NC, it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that report obtained without notice to the OP cannot be relied upon. Except these reports, no other evidence has been placed on record by the complainants, thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the above-referred case, we are of the opinion that the report given by the officers of the Agriculture Department cannot be relied upon as the same has been prepared in the absence of the OPs.  
10.           At the same time the complainant has also failed to place on record, report of any laboratory to ascertain that the seeds in question sold by the OPs to him were of inferior quality. In Devender Kumar & Ors Vs. Amsons Lab Private Ltd.& Ors. reported in CPJ 2014 IV page 575 the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  has held that Purchase of pesticide-Defect-Damage to crop-Loss suffered-Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission allowed appeal-Hence, revision-Complainants have not placed on record any laboratory report to substantiate that crops were damaged 100% due to application of pesticide-Report of Agriculture Development Officer only reveals that there was 100% damage to wheat crop-These officers have not carried out any test to ascertain whether 100% damage to wheat crop was due to application of purchased pesticides or not-Defects not proved. In case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Bhup Singh, in Revision Petition No.2144 of 2014, DOD: 9.4.2015, it is observed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, the germination of any kind of seed, is based on so many factors, such as, proper preparation of the land, fertilization, proper pesticides, proper irrigation, climate, and proper nourishment which again affected by seasonal vagaries which are not under the control of any human agency, for example, if there was no proper moisture in the land, there will not be proper germination. Lesser moisture or excess moisture affects the germination. Similarly, excessing use of fertilizer, also affects then, the climates such as, pouring of rain at proper time or improper time.  Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that without getting the seeds in question tested from appropriate laboratory, except physical inspection of the site aforesaid which is in violation of the relevant directions of the competent authorities, it cannot be said that the seeds in question were of inferior quality/sub standard. Thus, the version of complainant alleging that the seed sold by OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, were of inferior quality is not believable. As such, we do not hesitate to conclude that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same. Parties are left to bear their own costs.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 22.07.2024

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President