Haryana

Ambala

CC/292/2022

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

15 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	292 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2022
Date of decision	:	15.03.2024

 

Ashok Kumar aged about 60 years son of Shri Janak Singh, resident of Village Khuda, Tehsil Ambala Cantt. and District Ambala,  State Haryana

……. Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s Kissan Pesticides, Village Kharindwa, Tehsil Shahabad (M) District Kurukshetra through its Proprietor.
2. Synergene Crop Innovations, Regd. Office MIG-352/1, Flat No.203, Sri Krishna Enclave, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072 (AP) through its Authorized Signatory.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                      Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Karam Singh Antala, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                    Shri Ashish Sareen, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,08,800/- as loss suffered by the complainant due to defective seeds;
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant;
3. To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. oR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.           Brief facts of the case 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. Thus, the OPs are dealing in producing and selling the seeds in collaboration with each other. On 20.02.2022, the complainant along with Rajinder Kumar son of Jarnail Singh resident of Village Kapori, District Ambala and Tarvinder Singh son of Shri Jai Pal Singh, resident of Village Rattanheri, District Ambala had gone to the shop of the  OP No.1 and purchased 13 bags of 2 KG each of hybrid sunflower seed of HB-1023 manufactured/packet by the  OP No.2 for sowing the same in their fields, but the  OP No.1 had issued invoice No. 2627 dated 20.02.2022 of Rs. 35,100/- in the name of Rajinder Singh only. OP No.1 on behalf of the  OP No.2 assured the complainant along with Rajinder Singh & Tarvinder Singh that the sunflower seeds are of best quality and will give best yield. On this assurance, the complainant sowed the seeds in his land assuming it of good quality. Before sowing the said seeds, the complainant prepared his land ploughing by the tractor, watering, using of pesticides etc and had sown the seeds in his five acre land on 21/22.02.2022. As such, the complainant has incurred expenses for the preparation of land before sowing the said seeds. Thereafter the complainant waited for the germination of the said seeds but was surprised to see that the growth of sunflower is very abnormal. The complainant along with Rajinder Kumar and Tarvinder Singh gave an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Ambala 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 along with Ashok Kumar and Tarvinder Singh on 18.05.2022 and reported that in all the five acre land of the complainant, it is found that 50 to 55% sunflower plant are multi-flowering i.e. 15 to 20 flowers instead of one flower and only 45 to 50% plants are single flowering, as the seed is misbranded and opined that that the complainant will suffer a huge financial loss. The loss of crop was caused to the complainant due to the supply of adulterated and defective seeds to the complainant by OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2, which is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has incurred the total loss of Rs.3,08,800/- due to supply of defective seeds by the OPs. Legal noticed dated  06.06.2022 was also served upon the OPs to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him but to no avail.  Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, 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 paddy seeds in his fields for commercial purposes i.e. for raising the paddy seeds and selling the produce in the market to derive profit therefrom, as such, the complainant is not "consumer" as defined under consumer Protection Act; this complaint is not maintainable etc. On merits,  it has been stated that OP No.1 is a dealer of  OP No.2 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 paddy seed. The complainant has neither produced any evidence to the effect that he is owner of 4 Acres of 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 his 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."

4.           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. In the present case admittedly complainant has not produced any such report, except one report dated 18.05.2022, Annexure C-2 given by the officers of the Agriculture Department, which has been made in the absence of the OPs. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Davindra Singh son of Birendra Singh Prop. of Synergene Crop Innovations as Annexure OP-A and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by supplying defective seeds which resulted into damage of crops of the complainant thereby causing him financial loss and also mental agony and harassment, as such, the OPs are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice.  
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs 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 to him was actually of inferior quality. He further submitted that the report dated 18.05.2022, Annexure C-2 given by the officers of the Agriculture Department placed on record by the complainant cannot be relied upon because the same has been prepared in the absence of the OPs. 
9.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether the complainant has been able to prove his case or not. It may be stated here that to prove his case, the complainant is solely relying upon the report dated 18.05.2022, Annexure C-2 having been issued by the Officers of the Agriculture Department, Ambala wherein it has been opined that because instead of one flower it has been observed that 15 to 20 small flowers have come on one plant in the field of the complainant therefore the quality of sunflower seed is bad; and the complainant has suffered complete loss of yield. Except this report, no other evidence has been placed on record by the complainant. However, in our  considered view this report dated 18.05.2022, Annexure C-2 given by the officers of the Agriculture Department is not   tenable in the eyes of law because they have not followed the instructions of Govt./higher authorities by not associating the OPs at the time of inspection of fields. Hence, the report dated 18.05.2022, Annexure C-2  relied upon by complainant is not legally binding upon the OPs and thus as per our view, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
10.           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, which was done in the absence of the OPs, it cannot be said that the seeds in question were of inferior quality/sub standard. Thus, the version of complainant alleging that the seed sold by OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, were of inferior quality is not believable. As such, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. The complaint filed by the complainant is 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. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.   

Announced:- 15.03.2024.

 

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