Haryana

Ambala

CC/227/2022

Gurjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kesri Pesticides - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	390 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	17.10.2022
Date of decision	:	10.06.2024

 

Madan Lal aged about 56 years, son of Mehar Singh resident of Village Ganganpur, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

……. Complainant

Vs.

 

1. Synergene Crop Innovations, Regd. Office MIG 352/1, Flat No.203, Sh. Krishna Enclave, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072 through its Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s Gupta Beej Bhandar, Main Road Bus Stand Nahoni, Sub Tehsil Mullana (Ambala) through its Prop. Harish Kumar.

….…. Opposite Parties

 

Present:        Shri Anil Singla, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

   Shri Ashish Sareen, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

………………………………………………………………………………………

Complaint case no.	:	227 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	17.06.2022
Date of decision	:	10.06.2024

 

Gurjeet Singh aged about 41 years son of Shri Gurdev Singh resident of Village Landa, Sub Tehsil Saha, Tehsil Ambala Cantt. Distt. Ambala

……. Complainant

Vs.

 

1. M/s Kesri Pesticides, Near State Bank of Patiala, Partap Mandi Gate, Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra-136135 (Haryana), through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.
2. Hari Bhumi Seeds Kranti Gold, Off No.95 with lot number 44, Active Ingredients Private Limited, Flat No.402, Bhanu Enclave Sunder Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad, Telangana (India)-500038 through its Authorized Signatory, having phone no.91+40-232700700994/23717500

….…. Opposite Parties

 

Present:     Shri M.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                             Defence of OP No.1 already struck off.                                                                                                                                                                   OP No.2 already ex parte.

………………………………………………………………………………………

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid   two   consumer complaints. Since, the issues involved in the above complaints except minor variations here and there of law and fact are the same, wherein the respective complainants have sought directions to the OPs to compensate them, for the damage caused to their respective crops/fields on account of sale of inferior quality of seeds/pesticides alongwith compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             The facts are being culled out from CC No. 390 of 2022, titled as Madan Lal Versus Synergene Crop Innovations and another. The facts in brief are that OP No.2 is running the business in the name and style of Synergene Crop Innovations and is the manufacturer/ producer of the seeds sold and distributes it through OP No.1. On 24.08.2022, the complainant purchased 5 bags of sunflower seeds vide invoice No. 1722 dated 24.02.2022 for total amount of Rs.15,750/-.  OP No.2 assured the complainant that the sunflower seeds are of superior quality and will give best yield. On this assurance, the complainant sowed the seeds in his 5 acres of land assuming it of good quality but was surprised to see that the said seeds were of inferior quality as the growth of sunflower is very low. On single plant, there should be only one sunflower but there were 5 to 7 sunflowers on the plants and that too of very inferior quality. The complainant gave an application to the Agriculture Department, Saraswati Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar for investigation of the fields in which the sunflower plants were defective. Accordingly, a team was constituted and the said team inspected the fields of the complainant on 06.06.2022 and gave report, Annexure C-2 wherein it has been reported that in the land in question of the complainant, it is found that 50 to 60% sunflower plants are multi-flowering i.e. 5 to 7 flowers on each plant and that the farmer has suffered loss to the extent of 50 to 60%. The loss was caused to the complainant due to the supply of inferior quality of seeds by the OPs. The complainant has suffered a heavy loss due to supply of defective seeds by the OPs. Legal notice dated 12.07.2022 was also served upon the OPs to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him but to no avail. The OPs are liable to pay Rs.2,16,000/-, for the loss suffered by the complainant due to less production of sunflower crop because of inferior quality of seeds. They are also liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony  and physical harassment suffered by him and Rs.50,000/-, as litigation expenses.
3.           Similar allegations have been leveled by the complainant in CC No. 227 of 2022 Gurjeet Singh  Versus M/s Kesri Pesticides and another. Hence these complaints.
4.           Upon notice, in CC No.390 of 2022, titled as Madan Lal Versus Synergene Crop Innovations and another, the OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint;  the complainant had taken up the cultivation of sunflower seeds in his fields for commercial purposes i.e. for raising the sunflower seeds and selling the produce in the market to derive profit therefrom, as such, the complainant is not a "consumer" as defined under consumer Protection Act; this complaint is not maintainable etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.2 is a dealer of OP No.1 and the seeds in question were sold to the complainant via sealed packet. The germination and proper yield is based on various factors. In the case of Ram Chander Versus Laxmi Beej Bhandar reported as (1, 1994-CPJ-33) and R.S. Banumathi Versus Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company limited reported as (1 1992 CPJ 248) the Hon'ble Court held that the proper yield is based on various factors such as proper preparation of the land, fertilization, pest and disease control, proper irrigation, climate and seasonal conditions which are not in the control of any human agency. Under the Seed Act, 1996 (which is the special enactment) remedy is available for the complainant to get his grievance redressed. The complainant has not placed on record the empty bags of seeds. The complainant has not provided any evidence to prove that he had sown the same seeds as are alleged to have been supplied by the OPs.  The complainant has also failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had followed correct and prescribed agricultural practices for sowing the sunflower seed. The complainant has neither produced any evidence to the effect that he is owner of the land nor disclosed the fact that how much seed is required for one Acre. The complainant before filing this complaint, did not approach to the Seed Inspector regarding less germination of the seeds in their field. In fact, under the Seed Rules, 1968, under Rule 23-A, Seeds Inspector is duly bound to investigate the cause of the failure of the seeds by sending a sample of the lot to the seed Analyst for a detailed analysis in the State Seeds Testing Laboratory. Rule 23- A of the said Seed Rules is as under for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Commission:- "Rule-23-A"

Action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him:-

(1) If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks of labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complaint for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the state Seed Testing Laboratory. He shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the competent authority.

(2) In case, the Seed Inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standard notified by the Central Government, he shall launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act or these Rules."

5.           The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd Versus Sadhu and another reported as (2005) 3 SCC 198 has held that there has to be a specific report prepared by the Expert Committee" that the germination is not proper due to inferior quality of seeds. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant in CC No.390 of 2022, titled as Madan Lal Versus Synergene Crop Innovations and another tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A  alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant and in CC No. 227 of 2022 titled as Gurjeet Singh  Versus  M/s Kesri Pesticides and another,  tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A  alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant
7.           Learned counsel for the OPs in CC No. 390 of 2022, titled as Madan Lal Versus Synergene Crop Innovations and another tendered affidavit of Davindra Singh son of Birendra Singh, Proprietor of OP No.1-Synergene Crop Innovations as Annexure OP/A  and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.
8.           However, in  CC No. 227 of 2022 Gurjeet Singh  Versus M/s Kesri Pesticides and another, despite availing number of opportunities, after putting appearance, when OP No.1 did not file written version, its defence was struck of by this Commission vide order dated 03.01.2023.  At the same time because none put in appearance on behalf of OP No.2, it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 06.09.2022.
9.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
10.           Learned counsel for the complainants submitted that by supplying defective seeds which resulted into damage of crops of the complainants thereby causing them financial loss and also mental agony and harassment, as such, the OPs are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice.  
11.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs in CC No. 390 of 2022, titled as Madan Lal Versus Synergene Crop Innovations and another while reiterating the  objections taken in the written version submitted that the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the seeds sold were actually of inferior quality. He further submitted that the inspection report dated 06.06.2022, Annexure C-2 given by the officers of the Agriculture Department placed on record by the complainant(s) cannot be relied upon because the same have been prepared in the absence of the OPs. 
12.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether the complainants have been able to prove their cases or not. It may be stated here that to prove their case, the complainants are solely relying upon the report dated 06.06.2022, Annexure C-2 (In CC No. 390 of 2022) having been issued by the Officers of the D.D.A., Agriculture Department, Yamuna Nagar, wherein it has been opined that in the land of the complainant, it is found that 50 to 60% sunflower plant are multi-flowering i.e. 5 to 7 flowers on each plant and that the farmer has suffered loss to the extent of 50 to 60%. In the report dated 30.05.2022, Annexure C-2 and C-3 (in CC No.277 of 2022) having been issued by the Officers of the D.D.A., Agriculture Department, Ambala, wherein it has been opined that in the land of the complainant, it is found that in 11 acre land of the complainant 70 to 75% sunflower plants are multi-flowering and that the farmer has suffered loss to the extent of 65 to 70%. Whereas the plea of the OPs is that no reliance can be placed on the said reports because no notice regarding inspection of the crop by the Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,  Yamuna Nagar and Ambala, was received by them and the inspection was done in their absence. 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.  
13.           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, it cannot be said that the seeds in question were of inferior quality/sub standard. Thus, the version of complainant that the seeds in question were of inferior quality is not believable. As such, the complainants have miserably failed to prove their case. Both the complaints filed by the complainants are 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.
14.           Certified copy of this order be placed in the connected file also. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.          

Announced:- 10.06.2024.

 

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