Haryana

Karnal

CC/119/2021

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kissan Beej Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kumar Kamboj

29 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 119 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.25.02.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:29.03.2023

 

Rajinder Kumar son of Shri Rameshwar Dass, resident of village Badheri, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     M/s Kissan Beej Bhandar near Udham Singh Chowk, Indri District Karnal through its Proprietor Shri Karan.

 

2.     M/s Syngenta India Limited Amar Paradigm, Sr no.110/11/3, Baner Road, Pune-411045 (MH) through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Mai Chand, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Abhay Sahu, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession. He took four acres and 2 kanals of agriculture land on lease from one Ram Singh son of Jag Ram, resident of village Badheri, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal  for a period of three years @ Rs.53000/- per acre for first year, Rs.54,000/- pr acre for second year and Rs.55,000/- per acre for third year. Complainant was willing to sow Mooli (Daikon Radish) crop in his said land and on 31.07.2020 visited the shop of OP no.1 and OP no.1 suggested complainant to purchase the seed of OP no.2 with the assurance that said seed is of very good quality and it would gave very good yield i.e. 150 quintal per acre. The complainant came under the instigation of OP no.1 and purchased 20 packets of Mooli seed for which OPs have charged an amount of Rs.7200/- from complainant. The complainant is very skilled farmer and he sown the said seed in his land but on some places same was not germinated and then complainant visited OP and made complaint regarding not germination of the seed. On this, OP no.1 advised complainant to sow four packets more seed in the said land as in usual course 75% of seed used to grow. The complainant followed the advised of OP no.1 and purchased four more packet worth Rs.1480/- from OP on 18.08.2020.  After that complainant sown the said seed in his land but he found that the said seed was not grown up properly and was Mooli were having hairs and were of smaller size due to which the complainant could fetch Rs.5/- to 10/- per kg only whereas the other farmers have got the rates of Rs.28/- to Rs.32/- per kg. Complainant visited the OP no.1 and made complaint regarding the abovesaid problem and requested to convey the message to OP no.2 so that they may visit the spot and sort out his problem  but OP did not bother the same. Then complainant moved an application to the District Horticulture Officer, Karnal for inspection of his fields and the official of said department on 16.10.2020 inspected the fields of complainant in the presence of OP no.1 and Mr.Amit, a representative of OP no.2. After inspection reported that the shape of Mooli is un-even and different in size than general size and shape the performance of the seed supplied to farmer is not as per the assurance given to farmer by OPs.  The said authorities gave its report dated 30.10.2020 stating therein that the farmer has suffered financial loss due to the supply of inferior quality of seed. The OPs have supplied the sub-standard and inferior quality of seed to complainant due to which complainant has suffered huge loss to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/-. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the dispute, if any, is in between the complainant and the OP no.2, who is manufacture of the seed in question. There is no dispute with the OP no.1 as the OP no.1 is retail dealer and he purchased the seed in question from Khaitan Agro Seed, Delhi vide invoice no.00513/20-21 dated 30.05.2020 and in the packed position and sold the same to the complainant. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 never suggested to purchase the seed manufactured by OP no.2, rather complainant himself demanded the seed manufactured by the OP no.2 and accordingly OP no.1 gave the same to the complainant and charged Rs.7200/- from him and issued invoice dated 31.07.2020. It is further pleaded that on receipt of complaint from complainant, OP no.1 reported the matter to OP no.2, who got inspected the fields of complainant. No intimation was given to the OP no.1 regarding the date and time of inspection of the fields of the complainant, hence report of the District Horticulture Officer is having no legal value in the eyes of law. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant claims to be an agriculturist and therefore is aware that the OP no.2 is not at all responsible or liable for the alleged issued mentioned in the complaint without any substantial evidence. The complainant has failed to produce any scientific report or analytical report based on scientific tests that substantiate that the Ivory White seed by the OP no.2 were of poor quality or of inferior quality and the cause of alleged yield quality was due to the poor quality of Ivory White seeds of OP no.2. Whereas, OP no.2 submitting an Internal Seed Test Laboratory Report which states that the Ivory White seeds of the OP no.2 is very well above the prescribed standards of germination, purity and other standards. It is further pleaded that expected yield from the crop does not depend only upon the quality of seeds and there are many other external factors that may cause loss of yield. Therefore, complainant has miserably failed to establish any defect in product or deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. It is further pleaded that the report dated 30.10.2020 has nowhere mentioned the details of the land which was inspected under such report. Thus, it is not confirmed if the report dated 30.10.2020 relates to the land on which the seed of Radish Ivory White seeds was showed by the complainant. The said report merely states that the shape of radish is unusual and same is unmarketable. The report does not state the exact reason or possible reason for above alleged symptoms in radish. The report is totally arbitrary, biased and based on alleged visual inspection of the certain part of the field and without scientific analysis and moreover no concrete reason for the alleged unusual shape of radish has been provided in the report. Such report which is arbitrary in nature and lacks any scientific back up to substantiate its findings is not maintainable against the OP no.2. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of agreement dated 06.11.2019 Ex.C1, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C2,  bills dated 18.08.2020 and 31.07.2020 Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, seed packet Ex.C5, copy of crop detail Ex.C6,  bills dated 06.10.2019, 06.10.2019, 09.10.2019 and 12.10.2019 Ex.C7 to Ex.C10, photographs of crop Ex.C11 to Ex.C13, copy of agriculture report dated 30.10.2020 Ex.C14, copy of legal notice dated 10.11.2020 Ex.C15, AD Ex.C16 and Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on 15.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             Learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Pardeep Kumar Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 16.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nikhil Nikam Ex.RW2/A, authority letter Ex.OP1, copy of published study by a State Agriculture University Ex.OP2, copy of seed analysis test report Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 16.11.2022 by suffering separate  statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and took four acres and two kanals  land on lease from one Ram for a period of three years. On 31.07.2020 and 18.08.2020, complainant purchased Mooli seed from OP no.1 and sown the same in the abovesaid land. When the crop of Mooli at the stage of growing, complainant saw that the said seed was not grown up properly and Mooli were having hairs and were of smaller size. Complainant moved an application to the District Horticulture Officer, Karnal for inspection of the fields. The official of said department on 16.10.2020 inspected the fields of complainant  and stated  in his report  that the farmer has suffered financial loss due to the supply of inferior quality of seed and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the OP no.1 is retail dealer and he purchased the seed in question from Khaitan Agro Seed, Delhi in the packed position and sold the same to the complainant in packed condition and thus the OP no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

11.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant has failed to produce any scientific report or analytical report based on scientific tests that substantiate that the seed in question were of inferior quality. He further argued that expected yield from the crop does not depend only upon the quality of seeds and there are many other external factors that may cause loss of yield. Complainant has miserably failed to establish any defect in product and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, complainant purchased 20 packets of Mooli (Daikon Raddish) seed from the OP no.1 on 31.07.2020, amounting to Rs.7200/-. It is also admitted that complainant also purchased 4 packets of Mooli (Daikon Raddish) seed amounting to Rs.1480/- on 18.08.2020.

14.           Complainant had sown the seed purchased on 31.07.2020, vide cash memo Ex.C4 in his land but on some places same was not germinated and complainant made a complaint to the OPs in this regard. On the advised of the OP no.1, complainant again purchased 4 packets seed, vide cash memo Ex.C3 dated 18.08.2020 and also sown the said seed in his land.

15.           The seed sold by the OPs has not grown up properly and Radish were having hairs and Radish was of smaller size. Complainant moved an application to the District Horticulture Officer, Karnal for inspection of his fields and official of the said department on 16.10.2020 inspected the field of the complainant in the presence of OP no.1 and representative of OP no.2. This fact has been proved from the letter Ex.C14 dated 30.10.2020. It is evident from the said letter that size and shape of the Radish was unusual, which was not acceptable in the market at a good price. The farmer has suffered financial loss due to non-receipt of proper price.             

16.           It is also evident from the Agreement Ex.C1 that complainant had taken four acres and two kanal of land on lease  from Ram Singh and paid Rs.53,000/- to land owner.  It is also evident from the Jamabandi Ex.C2, Ram Singh is the owner of the abovesaid land.  It is also evident from the crop detail Ex.C6, complainant has sown the Mooli crop in said land.

17.           It is also evident from the sale bills Ex.C7 and Ex.C8, complainant has sold the Mooli crops for the less rate and though the other farmer namely Sher Singh had sold his crop on  higher rate, vide bill Ex.C10. There is huge difference between the rate of Radish crop of the complainant and Sher Singh. It is also evident from the photographs Ex.C11 to Ex.C13, the Radish crop of the complainant was having hairs and Radish was not of the good quality. It has been proved from the above evidence, the seed sold by the OPs was of inferior quality and not as shown on the seed packet of the OPs. Thus, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

18.           Due to supplying of the inferior quality of Mooli seed, complainant has suffered a huge financial loss. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the financial loss. Complainant had taken land on lease at the rate of Rs.53,000/-per acre and also spent other expenses to prepare the Radish crop. Complainant has suffered a loss for selling the Radish on low price. Complainant has claimed Rs.18lakhs on account of financial loss but he has not placed on file any cogent and convincing evidence to prove the loss of Rs.18 lakhs. Thus, it would be justified, if the complainant be compensated with Rs.1,50,000/- on account of financial loss, mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

19.           In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. one lakhs fifty thousand only) to the complainant. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the awarded amount is not paid within stipulated period then awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announcement of the order till its realization. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:29.03.2023                                                                    

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                           Member                          Member