BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 37 of 2020
Date of Institution : 17.01.2020
Date of Decision : 23.11.2022
Shyam Sunder S/o Sh. Ram Charan R/o village Dhatrath Tehsil Safidon District Jind.
.….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Mittal Fertilizers, near Old Anaj Mandi, Jind. Through its Proprietor.
2. Grow Tech Seeds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Plant: 4th Mile Stone, Sirsa Road, Hisar (Hry) Head Office: Ghora Farm (EBS) Road, Hisar-125001 through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.
3. Sub Divisional Officer Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department Safidon District Jind.
……Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.
SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ramkesh Sharma, Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh. Jitender Nirwan, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Lokender Kumar, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.
Sh.Sushil Kumar, SDAO, Safidon on behalf of OP No.3.
ORDER:
Shorn off unnecessary details, complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he is an agriculturist and he purchased seed of paddy Geowtech 10 Kg C/s Batch Oct.18-7-312-11 each packed having 5 Kg. @ Rs.700/- per bag amounting to Rs.1400/-. Complainant has submitted that he has taken 2 acres land on lease from his brother @ Rs.45000/- per acre and after preparing the sapling of the seed in question planted the same on leased land after preparing the field and following the instructions as mentioned on the seed bag. As per complainant, he found 37% off type plants and 63% plants of main variety in the field. So, he approached agriculture authorities and the dealer of the seeds whereupon a team of Agriculture Department visited the field on 27.09.2019 and found that 37% off type plants were in the field. Complainant has alleged that OPs No.1 & 2 supplied the defective seed, resulting into less yield to complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Besides it, complainant has suffered harassment and monetary loss of Rs.86,000/-. So, complainant got issued legal notice dated 16.11.2019 to the OPs No.1 & 2 but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant seeking relief of Rs.86,000/- on account of crop loss alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses as prayed in prayer para of the complaint.
2. In pursuance to notices issued by this Commission, all the Ops appeared and tendered their replies separately.
OP No.1 appeared through counsel before this Commission and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of the complaint, complaint barred by jurisdiction and that the complaint is bad for want of provisions U/s 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Further the report of Agriculture Department is no report in terms of letter No.PKL-52-70 dated 03.01.2022/PA(SS) of Director, Agriculture Haryana, Panchkula. On merits, it has been admitted that complainant purchased the alleged seed and submitted that the seed were sold to complainant in a seal and packed condition as received from OP No.2. Answering OP has pleaded that complaint has not filed copy of Girdawari and J Form to establish that he had cultivated and sown paddy in his field and also not filed any document for taking land on lease from his brother. It has been further alleged that the report of agriculture department is no report in the eyes of law as the same has been prepared at the back of answering OP and the same is not binding on right of the OP and is liable to be ignored. Thus the OP no.1 has prayed that there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
OP No.2 submitted reply to complaint raising preliminary objections w.r.t. non-maintainability of complaint, no cause of action & no locus standi etc. and that the complainant has not got the seed tested from laboratory as required under Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and even has not moved any application before the concerned authorities for getting the seed of same batch number tested from any laboratory and that the report of agriculture department is in violation of letter No.PKL-52-70 dated 03.01.2022/PA(SS) of Director, Agriculture Haryana, Panchkula. On merits, purchase of seed by complainant is admitted subject to proof. The answering OP No.2 has denied taking the land on lease by complainant, sowing the seed in the field while following all the instructions on the seed bag. OP has submitted that Officers of Agriculture Department who inspected the field never called them at the time of inspection of fields of complainant. So, the report of Agriculture department is not a report in the eyes of law in terms of letter No.PKL-52-70 dated 03.01.2022/PA(SS) of Director, Agriculture Haryana, Panchkula. It is denied that 37% off type plants were due to inferior quality of seed. OP No.2 has urged that prior to selling of the seed in market, various quality and analysis tests are done in laboratory of govt. agency. In this way, answering OP has submitted that the allegations leveled in the complaint are vague and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
OP No.3 filed written version raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous, no cause of action against OP No.3 and the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, OP No.3 has submitted that upon the complaint of complainant, team of agriculture department visited the spot and found two types of paddy plants in the fields. One type were 37% off type and the other type were 63% and submitted their report dated 27.09.2019. In the end, OP No.3 denied rest of the contention of complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs qua OP No.3.
3. In order to prove the contention of complainant, learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence.
On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of one Sh. Ram Bilas Mittal Prop. of OP No.1 firm as Annexure OPW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1 whereas learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of one Sh. Rajnish Garg, authorized representative of OP No.2 firm as Annexure OPW2/A alongwith documents as Anneuxres OP2/1 to OP2/5 and closed the evidence. OP No.3 tendered in evidence only documents as Annexures OP3/1 to OP3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and evaluated the record placed on file very carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that the paddy seeds so purchased by complainant from Ops did not grow properly and on inspection by Agriculture Department-OP No.3, the plants were found of two types i.e. one of 37% off type whereas 63% of other type i.e. of main crop. Counsel for complainant has further contended that seeds so sold by OPs were of poor quality and defective one resulting into less production because of which complainant has suffered huge loss in crop production and submitted that the act & conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and prayed for allowing the complaint. In support of his case, counsel for complainant has placed reliance on case law titled as M/s National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M/s Madhusudhan Redddy & Another rendered in Civil Appeal No.7543 of 2004 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 16.01.2012 wherein it has been held that “In order to prove that the seed sold to complainant was not sub-standard/defective, the petitioner company could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory which is failed to do. Further, it is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. On the other hand, a Senior Officer of the Govt. had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective. Thus no adverse inference can be drawn against complainant on ground of his having not sent, the sample of seed for testing to a laboratory”.
On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs urged that the complainant might have not followed the proper procedure for planting the paddy seed in question and spraying the pesticides in time and the inspection report 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 at least one representative of the OP Seed Agency as well as one Scientist of KGK/KVK or HAU at the time of inspection of fields as mandated by Director Agriculture Haryana. Further, the report given by the officer is not authentic one as they have failed to mention the cause of 37% off type plants either due to defective/inferior quality of seeds or due to any other reason. Counsel for Ops vehemently argued that the complainant has also failed to place on record, report of any laboratory to ascertain that the paddy seeds in question sold by OP No.1 were of inferior quality and defective one and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
To support their version, counsel for OPs placed reliance on the case law delivered in First Appeal No.349 of 2014 titled as Vijay Singh Vs. M/s Om Shanti Sales Corporation and others decided on 19.08.2015 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula wherein Hon’ble State Commission has held that “Mere allegations of defective seeds cannot be conclusive proof unless and until supported by any cogent and convincing evidence. The report submitted by the Committee of Agriculture Officers nowhere reflects that the seeds supplied by the OP to the complainant was defective. Thus no liability can be fastened upon the OPs for the loss of crop of the complainant”. Counsel for Ops have also placed reliance on another case law titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Sawroop, Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014 decided on 26.11.2014 wherein the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi and the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sadhu & others II (2005) CPJ-13 SC has held that ‘the onus to prove that there was defective seeds etc. was on the complainant’. Further, the counsel for Ops also placed reliance on the case law titled as Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and Company & Ors. Reported in 2013 (II) CPJ Page 617 (NC) wherein it has been held that “petitioner has not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under the provision of Section 13 (1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Petitioner has also not moved an application before the concerned authority for getting seed of the same batch, number tested from any laboratory-Report of Agriculture Department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection-inferior quality of seed not proved.” Learned counsel for OP No.2 further placed reliance on the case law titled as Naseeb Singh Vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & others decided on 04.08.2017 in F.A. No.861 of 2016 which have been delivered by Hon’ble State Commission Haryana after appreciating the case laws delivered by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1451 of 2011 titled as Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaih & Anr. decided on 31.07.2013 and in another case law titled as Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Sreeniwas Reddy & others reported in II (2012) CPJ 297 wherein it has been specifically held that “Inspection without notice to opposite parties is against the principle of natural justice and case laws relied by the opposite parties fully supports the version of opposite parties. Firstly, much weight cannot be given to the expert report as the inspection was conducted without notice to the opposite parties and without associating a scientist. In the inspection report, it is nowhere mentioned that the seeds supplied to the complainant were defective and germination of the seeds was poor due to defective or spurious seeds. There may be so many reasons of poor germination of seeds. Germination of seeds depends upon the climate condition, nature of soil, proper irrigation, use of manure and fertilizers etc.”
6. After hearing rival contentions of both the parties and perusing the record placed on file, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased the paddy seeds from OP No.1, produced/manufactured by OP No.2 and sold to OP No.1. The main grievance of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality & defective one and after sowing/planting the same, 37% plants were found off type resulting into less yield of paddy because of which complainant suffered loss. To prove aforesaid contention, complainant has placed reliance on inspection report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-2) wherein the officers who inspected the fields of complainant has nowhere reported that 37% off type plants resulting into less production of the paddy yield was due to defective or inferior quality of seed.
In view of the above, we are of the firm opinion that without getting the seeds in question tested from appropriate laboratory, it cannot be said that the seeds in question was of inferior quality/sub-standard but the complainant neither himself got tested the seed in question from laboratory nor moved an application in this behalf to the concerned authorities which is mandatory under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Further, the report of committee of Agriculture Department nowhere stated that the seeds sold by the Ops were defective one or of sub-standard quality. Besides it, no any officer of the Agriculture department who inspected the fields of complainant & prepared report has neither appeared before the Commission nor submitted affidavit to authenticate the loss caused to the complainant was due to defective seeds. Perusal of letter Annexure OP2/5 tendered by OPs clearly reveals that the officers of Agriculture Department alone have no authority to inspect the fields of farmers regarding any complaint of poor quality seed etc. as per instructions issued by Director, Agriculture Haryana vide memo no.52-70/TA(SS)PKL dated 03.01.2002 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that if there is any complaint regarding poor quality of seed, then field of the complainant farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of agriculture department and one representative of concerned seed agency and at least one Scientist of KGK/KVK/HAU but these instructions have not been complied with meticulously by the officers of Agriculture Deptt. and thus we have no hesitation in holding that the inspection report (Annexure C-2) relied upon by complainant in this case is no report in the eyes of law and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were of sub-standard quality & defective one. Apart from the above, the case law submitted by the counsel for complainant is not applicable to the facts & circumstances of present case since in the case law titled as M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Madhusuddan Reddy & Another (supra), the Senior Officer of Govt. who inspected the crop clearly reported under his hand & seal that the seeds were defective whereas in the case of complainant, the aforesaid element of defective seed is missing in the inspection report Annexure C-2 (though the report is also not tenable in light of instructions of Director Agriculture Haryana) whereas on the other hand, case laws produced by Ops counsels are fully applicable to the facts & circumstances of the case in hand.
Accordingly, the facts narrated above lead to the conclusion that the factum of complainant having suffered a loss due to sub-standard/inferior & defective quality of seeds so sold by OPs is not established by any scientific or any other evidence and further, relying upon the report of Agriculture Department alone, it cannot be stated that the version of complainant is true. So, in such a situation, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
