Haryana

Ambala

CC/330/2012

GURMAIL SINGH SH GURCHARAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S JAI SHANKAR SEED STORE - Opp.Party(s)

C.M RANA

17 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 330 of 2012

                                                          Date of Institution         : 27.11.2012

                                                          Date of decision   : 17.04.2017

 

          Gurmail Singh S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh R/o Village Ratanheri Distt.       Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1. M/s Jai Shankar Seed Store, Rampur Chowk, Ambala Cantt.
2. Harbir Agrotech, Sector-6, Karnal Distt. Karnal.  

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

 

Present:       Sh. Balbir Singh, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. R.K. Singh, counsel for OP No. 1.

                   Sh. Rameshwar Dass, counsel for OP No. 2.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased F.1 highbrid chitra (seed of bottle ground chitra) from OP No. 1 weighing 550grms vide bill No. 01779 dated 14.05.2012 amount of                   Rs.1760/- and the same has been produced and marketed by OP No. 2 and grown the said seed in 6 to 7 kanals of land on 15.05.2012. Further submitted that as per the report issued by the District Agriculture Officer, Ambala, it is submitted therein that Sh. Gurmail Singh, EX-Sarpanch that the shopkeeper has demanded the seed for (bottle gourd-ghiya size in length), even the photograph of Ghiya size in length was pasted on those packets, which were purchased by the complainant vide the bill referred above and it is pertinent to mention here that it is a matter of very strange that the seller i.e. the OP No. 1 had issued the bill, with mentioning lot number of the seeds, whereas on the packets of seeds it is also mentioned as “Bottle-F.1, Highbrid Chitra FNE/BG-119 and the stamp which is affixed thereon is not so clear and readable, this also creates all doubts. Further submitted that the team has inspected the fields of the farmers and has found that the Ghiya size in length has been found only 15% whereas Gol size of Ghiya was found 85 percent and it is also observed by the farmer. Further submitted that the complainant has suffered a huge loss due to the supply of wrong seeds to the tune of more than Rs.1 lac and the complainant has requested many times to the respondents and asked to compensate the complainant, the huge loss suffered by him, but initially, the OPs have put off the matter either on one pretext or the other and ultimately now refused to compensate the complainant in any manner. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OP No. 1 appeared and filed written statement submitting that the complainant has no sustained any damages as alleged in the complaint and the complaint is filed with ulterior movie to gain undue benefits from the OP No. 1and OP No. 1 is neither the manufacturer nor processor of the seeds in question nor the distributing agency of the same. Further submitted that OP No. 1 was never contacted or called on the spot nor were the company persons called to visit the spot.

                   OP No. 2 also stated that the complainant should produce the strict proof regarding the purchase of the above said product from the OP NO. 2 and the complainant has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (C) of Consumer Protection Act, which provides analysis of the seeds from the competent laboratory to ascertain any defect in the seeds. Further submitted that a direction issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana Panchkual to all the Deputy Director, Agriculture in the State vide Memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002 regarding the inspection of farmer fields on receipt of a complaint regarding sale of poor quality seeds, the brief facts of this letter is that “It has been reported by the some seed producing distributors agent that fields of complainants farmer are inspected by the office of the agriculture department without associating the representative of concern seeds. Sometime cases in the Court of law are decided after taking into consideration reports of these inspections. Therefore, it has been decided that fields of the? Complainant farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising two officer of agriculture department, one representative of concern seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK/HAU and report will be submitted to the office immediately after inspection. The complainant was suffered any loss as mentioned in the complainant but there was no fault on the part of the OP No. 2, it is due to negligence of the complainant who fails to adopt the procedure as prescribed by the agriculture department and the product which was supplied to the complainant is belong to best quality and same is manufactured by the well known company in the field of the hybrid rice. The answering respondent are still ready to retest the seeds from any laboratory of Haryana State regarding the sub-standard of the seeds, if the complainant is ready for the same. So, there is no loss to the complainant due to use of the above said seeds, if there is any loss to the complainant i.e. due to some other reason, which is concealed by the complainant from the Hon’ble Forum.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X and X-Y along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-2 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith document as Annexure R-1 and close his evidence. The evidence of OP No. 2 was closed by Court Order v.o.d. 14.02.2017.

4.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased highbred chitra (seeds of bottle gourd chitra) amount of Rs.1760/- vide bill No. 01779 dated 14.05.2012 as per Annexure C-1. It is also admitted fact that OP No. 2 is a manufacture of the seeds. The complainant has placed on record the Report of Agriculture Department Annexure C-2 as under:-

                   “Two types of Ghiya plantation are present in the field. The ghiya size in length has been found 15% whereas gol size of Ghiya was found 85%.which is clearly shows the missing of the seeds”.

5                 Counsel for complaint further argued that due to supplying of inferior seeds, complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for supplying the poor quality ghiya seeds to the complainant. Counsel for complainant relied upon the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled M/s National Seeds Corporation ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. AIR 1160 SC “wherein it is held that Section 13-Procedure for trial of complaint- complainant by farmer/growers of seeds supplied by appellants resulting in less field –sample seeds not available with complainants as all seeds purchased were sown-Appellant also not providing sample of seeds sold for analysis-Consumer Forum appointing agriculture experts to ascertain status and cause of failure of crop-Compensation awarded to complainants on basis of report of expert-Procedure adopted by Forum cannot be said to be contrary to Section 13(1) (C)-Order of Forum not liable to be set aside as specious ground that procedure prescribed under Section 13 (1) © had not been followed and the Hon’ble National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Circuit Bench at Pune, Maharashtra) in case titled Prathan Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Sayd Amir & Anr. 120 (NC) (Oct.) 2008 wherein held that “Section 2(1)(f), 14(I)(d)- Agriculture –Seeds defective-Inspection carried out by Inquiry- Committee- Vast Variance in characteristics of plaints found – complaint allowed by Forum compensation granted - order upheld in appeal-Hence revision- Procedure prescribed under Seeds Act followed –Necessary aside on contention that seeds not sent for testing- Orders of lower for a upheld”.

6.                On the other, counsel for appearing OP No. 1 has argued that there was no deficiency in seeds and they have sold the seeds to the complainant as received from OP No. 2 in a sealed packet and the report Annexure C-2 has been obtained by complainant in collusion with Agriculture Department. Counsel for OP No. 1 further stressed his arguments on the ground that the report of DDA has not been carried out in the presence of any person of OP.                    

7                 After hearing counsel for the parties, it is proved on the file that the complainant has purchased the seeds from OP No. 1 and it is also proved on the file that the Committee of the Agriculture Department has given the specific finding that Two types of Ghiya plantation were present in the field at the time of inspection. The ghiya size in length has been found 15% whereas gol size of Ghiya was found 85%.which is clearly shows the mixing of the seeds”.  So, report of the inspection committee consisting of three officers cannot be brushed aside on the contention that seeds have not sent for testing and report has been obtained at the back of the OPs. Even then, OPs have not rebutted the Inspection Report by way of cogent evidence. As such both parties are responsible for selling poor/missed quality seeds to the complainant whereby he has suffered huge loss. Hence, we conclude that OP No. 1 had sold defective seeds to the complainant which was manufactured by OP No. 2.

8                 Now coming to the point of compensation, the complainant has claimed that he suffered a huge loss of Rs. 1,00,000/-. We have gone through the contention of the complainant  is that the OP has sold the high-breed seed of bottle ground chitra size in length but after growing the same he has found the giya size in length found only 15% whereas the gol ghiya was found 85%. This Forum is also taken judicial notice to the fact that there is more demand of Ghiya in length size in comparison to ghiya in gol size in an open market. The complainant had failed to prove the actual loss suffered by him due to sale of gol size ghiya instead of length ghiya. So, in the interest of justice, this Forum assess the loss in                 lum-sum to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation,  if the Op failed to pay the       above said amount within stipulated period then they will pay the    interest @ 9%           from the date of complaint.

 

(ii)     Also to pay Rs. 2000/- as cost of      proceedings.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

consigned to record room.                                                              Sd/-

Announced on : 17.04.2017                                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                                    President

 

                     Sd/-

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member