Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/414/2014

Harsewak Singh S/o Gurminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Modern Agriculture Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Kulwant Singh

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT AJGADHRI.

 

                                                          Complaint No.414 of 2014.

                                                          Date of Institution:29.9.2014.

                                                          Date of Decision:28.11.2017.

                                   

Harsewak Singh son of Shri Gurminder Singh age 30 years, resident of village Basatianwala, tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1.       M/s Modern Agriculture Centre, opposite PNB Deep Market, Chhachhrauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

2.       Consumer Care Manager, Bayer Bioscience Private Limited Toopran 502334, Medak Distt. A.P.).

          …Respondents.

 

                                      Complaint under section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:     SH.SATPAL………..PRESIDENT,

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh.Kulwant Singh, Adv. for complainant.

              OP No.1 ex parte vide order dated 6.4.2015.

              Sh.Anil Aggarwal, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

ORDER:      (SH.STAPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.                The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as Ops).

2.                Brief facts of the complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant had purchased paddy seed of 6444 for three acres vide bill No.167, dated 19.5.2014 for Rs.2250/- @Rs.750/- per acre vide batch No.S71680916 and sown the above said paddy seed in his fields and also planted the same.  The complainant is owner of the land as duly shown in the Jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 H.B.No.216, tehsil Bilaspur.  The complainant looked after the said paddy crop to get good yield and sufficient income but the complainant was shocked to see that the paddy seeds supplied by the Op No.1 and manufactured by the Op No.2 was mixture of different varieties and was of sub standard.  The complainant was surprised to see that the seeds did not give the proper fruit and the complainant made a complaint to the OP No.1 in this regard but the Op flatly refused to listen the genuine request of the complainant and used filthy language with the complainant.  The complainant gave an application to SDO Plantation Scientist and to the ADO Chhachhrauli on 10.9.2014 and they visited the fields of the complainant and gave their report that there is mixture of sub standard seeds up to 50% in the three acres of paddy crop of the above complainant.  The complainant had suffered mental agony, harassment as well as financial loss and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the Ops to pay Rs.200,000/- as loss caused to the complainant on account of supplying of sub standard paddy seed, litigation expenses, mental agony, physical harassment, crop financial loss along with interest. 

3.                Upon notice the OP No.1 appeared in person and OP No.2 appeared through their counsel Shri Anil Aggarwal, Advocate and the case was fixed for filing written statement but the Op No.1 failed to appear on 6.4.2015 despite several calling of the case, hence, he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 6.4.2015.

4.                The Op No.2 while filing the written statement took some preliminary objections alleging therein that the OP’s company follow and maintain the best quality standards in the industry and every batch of each and every produce produced by the OP is approved for commercial dispatch and sale only after it meets the Government and more stringent internal quality parameters.  It has further been alleged that all the products of OP undergo strict quality checks at every stage of production to ensure that the farmers get the highest quality seed.  On merits the pleas taken by the complainant has been controverted and alleged that there is no evidence brought by the complainant that the seeds which were purchased by him were same sown in the field of the complainant because the OP No.2 does not receive any list of documents produced by the complainant, so the complainant has no locus standi to approach the Hon’ble Forum for any relief.  It is further submitted that if there was any mixture in the said seed, the same was due to own negligence on the part of OP No.1 as it might be due to sowing of different paddy seeds and without proper division of part of land prepared for sowing paddy.  There is no adverse report of any laboratory about the quality of the seeds.  The Op No.2 have report of sample of the same batch of the seeds which does not support the case of the complainant, what precautions complainant took before sowing the seeds is not explained with the evidence.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Op and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.                To prove his case the complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit as annexure CW/A, documents copy of bill as annexure C1, copy of Jamabandi as annexure C.2, copy of Khasra Girdawari as annexure C.3, copy of inspection report as annexure C.4 and closed his evidence. 

6.                The counsel for the Op No.2 closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.2 without tendering any evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as OP No.2 and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file minutely.

8.                The version of the complainant is that he purchased three bags paddy seed of 6444 from the Op No.1 manufactured by the Op No.2 vide bill No.167, dated 19.5.2014 having batch No.S71680916 for Rs.2250/- i.e. Rs.750/- each bag and sown the same in his fields with proper care and precaution and thereafter planted the same in his three acres land and when the complainant noticed that there was some mixture in the seed sown/planted by the complainant he approached the OP No.1 but the Op No.1 did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant, then the complainant approached the SDO Plantation Scientist and ADO with applications on which the Deputy Director Agriculture constituted a committee comprising Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri, Subject Expert (Plantation Scientist), Jagadhri and Divisional Agriculture Officer, Chhachhrauli.  The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that as per the report of the above said inspecting team the complainant has suffered loss of crop to the extent of 45% due to the fault of the Ops but the Ops have failed to compensate the complainant.

9.                On the other hand the learned counsel for the OP No.2  reiterated the stand taken in their written statements and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10.               After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear that the complainant had purchased three bag paddy seeds of 6444 variety from the Op No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 vide bill no.167, dated 19.5.2014 for Rs.2250/-.   The factum of sowing the paddy crop by the complainant in his field is also proved from the copy of Khasra Girdawari annexure C.3 about which there is no dispute between the parties.  Further it has also come on record that when the mixture of other seeds of paddy in the purchased seed of paddy was detected by the complainant, he reported the matter to the higher officer of the Agriculture Department and a team of officers comprising of Sub Divisional Officer Agriculture, Jagadhri, Subject Expert (Plantation Scientist), Jagadhri, Divisional Agriculture Officer, Chhachhrauli inspected the field of the complainant on 10.9.2014 which submitted its report, the operative of part of which reads as under: “During inspection they found that there is mixing of 45% of other variety seed which caused financial loss to the farmer”.  

The Ops have taken the following pleas in their favour;

i)        That the complainant did not take proper precaution while sowing the seed in question in his field.

ii)       That the report of the team is not correct and further representative of the Ops have not been associated by the said team.

iii)      That the complainant did not get the sample of the seed tested from any authorized laboratory in support of his version.

 

11.               Firstly, regarding the plea mentioned at sr.no.1 it is mentioned here that the complainant filed this complaint with the clear & specific version that he sown the purchased paddy seed in fields after taking all due care and precaution and that there was no lapses on his part.   In the presence of specific assertion by the complainant in this regard the Ops merely stated that the mixing of seeds of other varieties in the seed of purchased variety might have been occurred due to negligence of the complainant as the complainant did not take proper precautions by separating the land for cultivation of purchased seeds from the land where paddy seeds of other variety was sown/planted. In support of their version, the Ops have not adduced any record which could falsify the version of the complainant. 

12.               Regarding the second plea, it is mentioned here that the fields of the complainant was inspected by three officers of the agriculture department including Subject Specialist in the plant protection and doubting report of the said team in the absence of any scientific report to the contrary is not tenable and legally sustainable.   Moreover, no allegations of any biasness has been pointed out or leveled against the members of the team.  Even otherwise there is no reason/justification for this Forum to ignore or discard the report of the said team.  The plea of the Ops regarding non association of the representative of the OPs during inspection is also not tenable in view of the fact that there is no dispute about the identity of the land where the nursery of Paddy seeds PB-I was sown.

13.               Thirdly, the plea of the Ops that the complainant should have get the seeds analysed/tested from any lab is also not tenable because the farmers like the complainant purchase the seeds in a small quantity and does not retain the sample of the purchased seeds with them for further testing by the lab.  This fact is also well known that the farmers are not so literate and reside in rural areas away from the towns and thus are not expected to retain the sample of seeds out of the purchased seeds for the purposes of testing from any lab so as to enable them to file the complaint in the Consumer Forum at the later stage.  At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that even the Ops have not placed on record any certified report of the sample of seeds of any authorized lab, so mere pleading is not sufficient to prove their version and the version of the complainant is un-rebutted, hence, the defect in the seeds is proved and the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is found, hence, the complainant entitled for relief.

14.               The preposition of law has been laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in the case reported in 2014(2) CPJ 703:2014(3) CPR 78:2014(3)CLT 186 (NC) titled as M/s Dharam Pal & Sons & another vs. Som Prakash, in which it has been held that,” Section 23A-officers of Agriculture department inspected the fields and submitted their report-Compliant accepted on the basis of report of Agriculture department-Plea of OP that seeds not got tested from the laboratory nor seeds sent to Seed Analyst for analysis-Plea not tenable-Held-As per the report, it is clear that the complainant had suffered loss in his paddy crop, to the extent of 50% , on account of substandard quality of seed sold to him by the Ops-There is nothing to label it as any ill-will by the members of the joint inspection team and the seller of the seed-Revision petition dismissed”.  Further the Hon’ble National Commission has held in a case reported in 2015(2) CLT P.94 (NC) titled as Doctor Seeds Private Limited vs. Ramesh Chand Thakur, held that Defective seed-Seeds Rules imposes the duty on the seller of seeds to keep sample of seeds, for a period of 3 years-Complainant, who has got only a small quantity of seeds is not supposed to keep a sample of the same-Despite of notice by complainant seller failed to preserve the sample of seeds-Held-Even in the absence of the expert, the Commission was to see, whether there are materials on the record which can prove the case of complainant-Revision Petition dismissed”. The Hon’ble Punjab State Commission also laid down law in case reported in 2012 (4) CLT 644(Pb.) titled as Rai Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Vs. Diwan Chand & ors. Wherein it has been held that, “Sections 6,7,8 and 9-Seeds-cotton seeds-Defective seeds-The appellant manufacturer of seeds produced no evidence that before selling the seeds in dispute the same were certified from the certification agency or from the Central Seed Certification Board as required u/s 6,7,8 and 9 of the Act 1966-Even no certificate is produced by the appellant to prove that the Seed in dispute before selling in the market were got analysed from the appropriate laboratory-By not producing the certification as well as the analysis report of the seeds in dispute of any recognized laboratory, it cannot be presumed that the seeds in dispute were not of inferior quality-Appellant as well as respondent No.2 nowhere pleaded or produced any evidence that the seeds in dispute were got tested from the certification agency or from the Central Seed Certification Board as required as per Section 6,7,8 and 9 of the Act, 1966-It is proved beyond any doubt that the seeds in dispute sold to respondent no.1 were of sub-standard quality and respondent no.1’s suffered loss due to defective quality of the seeds in dispute-Order of the District Forum allowing the appeal upheld”.  Further law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, in case titled as Rajinder Singh vs. Hariali Kissan Bajar reported in 2015(2) CLT 556 wherein it was held as under: “Defective seeds-From analysis of evidence on record and pleadings of the parties-Held, that the farmer cannot be expected to retain any part of highly valued seed to get it tested in case of unforeseen contingency by authorized dealer or manufacturer-OP being the seed producer would always have some quantity of seeds left with them and which they could have got tested from the laboratory-Therefore, it is their failure to perform, which has to be held against them”.  Further our Hon’ble State Commission in the case reported in 2014(1) CLT P.624, reported in M/s Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ld. Vs. Daulat Ram & others has held that, “Defective Seeds(Bajra)-Effect of non joining seed dealer in field inspection-Bajra seed found defective having been mixed with some other variety and not pure-Plea of OP that seed supplied was tested and passed by the Seed Certification Agency and field not inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana-Dealer of seed not joined by the experts during the inspection of fields of complainant-Contention repelled-Held-It was the duty of the officials of Agriculture Department to get the field inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana-The team is not being constituted as per the letter of the Director Agriculture and not associating the dealer of the seed, was not the fault of the farmer because he was not supposed to be aware that the representative of the company was to be associated in the team-It was for the officials of Agriculture Department to call the representative of the company-It was not the fault of the farmer at all, for which he should not be allowed to suffer”.

15.               In view of the above discussion, this Forum have reached to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops No.2 & 3.

16.               So far as the quantum of loss suffered by the complainant is concerned, we are of the view that average yield/production of paddy in question is about 25 quintals per acre and the report of the inspecting team has reported the loss to crop to the extent of 45%.  The area where the seeds were sown by the complainant was three acres and the total yield was expected to be 75 quintals and in the year 2014 the rate of one quintal paddy was approximately Rs.1400/- and total income from the three acres is as (75x1400=1,05,000/-) and the loss caused to the complainant is 45% i.e. 1,05,000x45/100=Rs.47250/- meaning thereby the complainant had suffered loss of Rs.47250/- and he is entitled to be compensated for the above said amount.

16.               Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay Rs.47,250/- as loss suffered by him due to defective seeds along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the compliant i.e. 29.9.2014 till its realization and further to pay Rs.5500/- as cost of proceedings.  Order be complied within one month from the date of preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant will be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced in open Court:28.11.2017.

                                                                             (SATPAL)

                                                                             PRESIDENT.

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)           

MEMBER