BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.292 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 02.11.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:23.07.2019.

Sube Singh @ Suba age 43 years S/o Sh. Karam Singh, r/o House No.662, Gadara Patti, VPO Balu, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Jindal Trading Company, Booth No.3, New Anaj Mandi, Kaithal through its proprietor/partner.
2. Indo-Amercian Hybrid Seeds (India) Pvt. Limited, Channasandra, Rajarajehwarinagar, Post, Bengaluru (Karnataka)-560098 (Manufacturer of HYBRID PADDY INDAM).

….Respondents.

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

                Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

                Smt. Suman Rana, Member.

Present:     Sh. Vinod Bura, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Sh. Rahul Gupta, Adv. for the Op No.2.

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 is small farmer and has 2.75 acre agriculture land in the name of complainant, which is situated at Village Balu, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant purchased the paddy seed PB-1509 of Batch No.04 for the sum of Rs.1600/- and similarly purchased HYBRID paddy INDAM 10-387 of Batch No.014 for the sum of Rs.3600/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.474 dt. 14.05.2018.  The complainant prepared the nurseries of the above-said seeds for plantation of crops of paddy in their land and after planting the paddy in total land measuring 2.75 acres, when the crop was at maturity, the seed was found of sub-standard and mixing of various verities.  The growth of some plants were found of dwarf height and some of the plants grown-up and the crops came at the principle stage, it was found that in some plants of the crops were matured at earlier stage and in some plants, the maturity was late.  The complainant moved an application to the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal and the team of experts visited the fields of complainant and gave the report that 10% off type plants were present in the field.  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; jurisdiction; that the compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of C.P.Act, 1986 has not been made in the present case; that the Op No.1 has sold the seed in question in sealed packing and in the same condition in which the Op No.2 supplied to the Op No.1; that the defect in seed (though denied) if proved, then only the Op No.2 is responsible; that the report dt. 30.08.2018 of Agriculture Department is illegal and is false.  No inspection has been done by the alleged officers rather it has been obtained by the complainant inclusion with the officers of Agriculture Department; that 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.

4.             Op No.2 file the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; that the complaint is bad for non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of C.P.Act, 1986; that the report dt. 30.08.2018 of Agriculture Department is illegal and is false.  No inspection has been done by the alleged officers rather it has been obtained by the complainant inclusion with the officers of Agriculture Department.  The said report is also bad as the Ops have not been associated in the alleged inspection nor any notice was sent to the Op for the alleged inspection; that the complainant have purchased the seeds for commercial purpose, so, the complainant are not consumers of the answering Op; that the seed in question was of good quality; that the germination of seeds depend on the so many factors such as appropriate of sowing, soil condition, climate, moisture, pests and disease and application of fertilizer and nutrients available in soil.  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.

5.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure- R3 & Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             Undisputedly, the complainant purchased the paddy seed in question from the Op No.1 vide bill No.474 dt. 14.05.2018 Ex.C1.  The dispute between the parties is according to complainant with regard to the paddy variety HYBRID INDAM 10-387. The grievance of the complainant is that the said seed was of sub-standard and there was 10% 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.C2.  Ld. counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2015(2) CLT page 596 titled as Rajinder Singh Vs. Hariali Kissan Bajar (Punjab State Commission) and AIR 2004 Supreme Court page 3474 titled as H.N.Shankara Shastry Vs. Asst. Director of Agriculture.

                   On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops stated that the said inspection report dt. 25.09.2018 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 2012(2) CPC (NC) titled as Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech (India) Ltd. Vs. Doddabasappa & others; 2011(3) CPC page 307 (NC) titled as Gujarat State Coop. Mktg. Federation Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyambhai Fulabhai Patel and 2009(1) CPC page 471 (NC) titled as Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Parchuri Narayana. 

9.             We have perused the inspection report Ex.C2, whereby the committee constituted by Agriculture Department has reported that the team inspected the 2.75 acres land of complainant and the complainant  told that he had sown the paddy seed in 2.75 acres land and the team of Agriculture Department assessed that there was 10% of other variety seed and the same will be in ripen condition within 10-15 days.  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 Seed Analysis Report dt. 27.03.2018 Annexure R3 regarding the variety INDAM 10-387 before releasing the seed in the market and the complainant purchased the same as per Annexure C1 on 14.05.2018 after testing of seed in the laboratory.  From the said report Annexure-R3, it is clear that the two different samples of variety INDAM 10-387 were got tested in the lab namely Indo-American Hybrid Seeds (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore and the analysis results of the same are as under:-

          So, from the above-said report, it is clear that the seed of variety INDAM 10-387 sold to the complainant was duly tested one and the seed in question was pure seed upto 99.6%, it means that the seed in question which was tested was not sub-standard nor any other variety mixed in the said variety.  The complainant has failed to rebut the above-said report Annexure R3 which was duly tested one.  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.C2 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.

10.            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.:23.07.2019.  

                                                                        (D.N.Arora)

                                                                        President.

(Suman Rana),           (Rajbir Singh)         

Member                             Member.