BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.247 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.09.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:04.06.2019.

Baljeet S/o Sh. Kartara r/o Village Dhundhrehri, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1.M/s. Haryana Kissan Seva Kender, Jind Road, Kaithal-136027, Distt. Kaithal through its prop./partner.

2. Quality Hybrid Seeds Company, Head Office: 222-A, New Grain Market, Hisar through its Managing Director.

….Respondents.

Before:      Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

                Smt. Suman Rana, Member.

Present:     Sh. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Kabir Dhall, Advocate for the OPs.

ORDER

D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant purchased 30 Kgs. i.e. 3 x 10 Kg., PB-1121 paddy seeds from the Op No.1 at the rate of Rs.75/- per Kg. for a total sum of Rs.2250/- vide bill No.5460 dt. 07.05.2018 and also purchased 20 Kgs. i.e. 2 x 10 Kg., PVSA-1121 paddy seeds from the Op No.1 at the rate of Rs.75/- per Kg. for a total sum of Rs.1500/- vide bill No.5838 dt. 12.05.2018.  It is alleged that the complainant has sown the said seeds in 11 acres i.e. 88 kanals of agriculture land and when the said paddy crop grown-up, the complainant found that more than 20% crop was of other kind of plants of paddy.  The complainant moved an application to the Agriculture Department and the committee visited the fields of complainant and gave the report dt. 11.09.2018, wherein the committee found that there were 20% plants of other kind.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Hence, this complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of C.P.Act, 1986; that the mandatory instructions of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana dt. 03.01.2002 have not been complied with, according to which the fields of the farmer are to be inspected by Committee comprising of two officers of the Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and Ops.  No alleged inspection of the crop has been made in presence of answering Op or any of its representative by Agriculture Department and the complainant.  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.             Op No.2 filed the reply on the same line as followed by Op No.1 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.           On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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 the seeds in question from the Op No.1 for sum of Rs.2250/- vide bill No.5460 dt. 07.05.2018 Ex.C1 and Rs.1500/- vide bill No.5838 dt.12.05.2018 Ex.C2.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said seed was of sub-standard and there was 20% of other variety seed which was sold by the Op No.1 to the complainant.  The complainant has also placed on file inspection report of Agriculture Department Ex.C10, whereby the committee constituted by Agriculture Department has assessed that the loss may be about 15%-20%.  Ld. counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2012(1) Apex Court Judgments 265(SC) titled as M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy & another and 2018(1) CLT page 420 (State Commission Punjab) titled as Karnal Seeds Corporation Pattran Vs. Sukhpreet Singh and others.

                   On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops stated that the said inspection report dt. 11.09.2018 was made at the back of Ops and without any notice to the Ops.  He further argued that the compliance of Section 13 (1)(c) of C.P.Act, 1986 has not been complied with by the complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops submitted a catena of authorities cited in 2010(3) CLT page 504 (Punjab State Commission) titled as Jallandhar Singh Vs. Tau Agrotech Private Ltd. & another; 2010(1) CLT page 186 (A.P.State Commission) titled as Chenna Rayudu Vs. Prabhat Agri Bio-Tech. Ltd. & another and 2005(2) CPJ page 13 (SC) titled as Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Vs. Sadhu and another. 

8.             From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the seed in question was purchased by the complainant on 07.05.2018 vide bill Ex.C1 and on 12.05.2018 vide bill Ex.C2.  From perusal of bill Ex.C1, the lot/batch number of the seed is mentioned as October/17-07-148-110 and on the bill Ex.C2, the lot number of the seed is mentioned as 17-07-148-101.  The aforesaid seeds were released in the market by its manufacturer (Op No.2) 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/17-07-148-101 & Annexure-R2 regarding the lot number October/17-07-148-110 and the same lot number are mentioned on both the bills as mentioned above.  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 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 bills of purchased seed i.e. Ex.C1 & Ex.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.  So far the producing of the photographs of the paddy crops by the complainant does not helpful to the complainant because it might be possible that the complainant have mixed the other variety at the time of sowing of said seed for preparing the paneeri.  The inspection committee has not mentioned any procedure which was adopted before coming on the conclusion that the seed in question was mixed one.  Therefore, the above-said report Ex.C10 has no value in the eyes of law.  The authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the complainant are not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas the authorities produced by ld. Counsel for the Ops are fully applicable to the facts of present case.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

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.:04.06.2019.  

                                                                        (D.N.Arora)

                                                                        President.

(Suman Rana),           (Rajbir Singh)         

Member                             Member.