Haryana

Karnal

CC/596/2021

Nirmal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mohan Seed Company - Opp.Party(s)

Radhe Shyam Sharma

19 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.596 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.25.10.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:19.07.2024

 

Nirmal Singh son of Shri Ram Singh, resident of village Hathlana, tehsil and district Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. M/s Mohan Seed Company, old Subjzi Mandi, Beej Market, Karnal through its prop./partner.

 

2. Savannah Seeds Private Limtied PH-IA, 10^th floor, Tower-A, Emaar Digital Green, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurugram (Haryana) through its partner/Director/authorized person.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by: Shri Radhy Sham, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Ashish Sareen, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is a farmer by profession and is doing agriculture work and it is the sole source of income of the complainant. Complainant is having five acres of land in village Hathlana, tehsil and District Karnal and sows the wheat and paddy crop in his field. On 18.05.2021, complainant purchased 15kgs of High Breed paddy seed of PR-7301 variety amounting to Rs.6000/- from the OP no.1 and OP no.1 assured the complainant that the seed supplied by the OPs is of very good and pure quality and approved by the Government. OP no.1 also assured that the complainant that there is no mixing in the abovesaid seed. OP no.1 also assured that the yield production of this variety is about 35-40 quintal per acre. Complainant believed the version of the OP no.1 purchased the abovesaid seed. If the yield production  of this variety is taken to be 40 quintal per acre, then in five acres, it come to 200 quintal and MSP of this variety was Rs.1960/- per quintal and thus the total amount will be near about Rs.4,00,000/- approximately. It is further alleged that after purchase of paddy seed, complainant prepared the nursery and thereafter planted the said seedling in the fields. The complainant spent huge amount on ploughing, fertilizer, pesticide and labour etc. for planting of paddy. When the crop was growing, the complainant was shocked to know that there are many plants of other variety. The complainant reported the matter in writing to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and the Deputy Director Agriculture constituted a team to inspect the crop of the complainant and the said committee vide its report dated 20.09.2021 came to the conclusion that there are plants of two different varieties and are of different stage. The Committee took the photographs of the standing crop and from going through the photographs, it is very much clear that there are plants of two different varieties. In this way, the mixing paddy could not be purchased by the agency/miller a MSP rate because there was mixing of two varieties and nobody desired to purchase the paddy at MSP rate and complainant sold his paddy crop at throughway price and suffered a huge loss. Complainant contacted the OP no.1 and told that OPs have supplied mixing seed of two varieties instead of High Breed and OP no.1 has charged price of the variety of PR-7301 and in this way OPs have cheated the complainant and have played a fraud upon the complainant and OP no.1 told the complainant that OP no.1 would discuss the matter with OP no.2 and the complainant would be compensated with suitable amount of compensation. In the year 2021, complainant has sold the crop of the mixing paddy at a very cheaper rate and has suffered a huge loss due to the unfair and malpractice of the OPs. Complainant requested the OPs so many times to pay Rs.4,00,000/- being the cost of paddy and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental pain and agony but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to pay the compensation. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction;  cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 is a dealer of OP no.2 and seeds in question was sold to the complainant via sealed packet as supplied by OP no.1. The main grievance of the complainant is that the seeds purchased by him for sowing the same in the agricultural land were mixed quality. In this regard, it is submitted that the germination and proper yield is based on various factors such as 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. It is further pleaded that complainant had not placed on record the empty bags of seeds. The complainant had not provided any evidence to prove that he had sowed the same seed as are alleged to have been supplied by the OP and has also failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had followed correct and prescribed agricultural practice for sowing the paddy seed. 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 there from. The complainant has neither produced any evidence to the effect that he is owner of 8 acres of land nor disclosed the fact that how much seed is required for one acre. Complainant before filing the said complaint, did not approach to the seed Inspector regarding less germination of the seeds in his field. Infact, 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 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 the seeds. In the present case complainant has not produced any such report. He has not received any complaint from complainant regarding any type of infirmity/defect in the said seeds. It is further pleaded that complainant has neither submitted any evidence that he has adopted proper method in sowing the seed nor submitted any expert report that the seed was actually defected. Neither the complainant nor any agricultural officer has intimated regarding the said problem to the OP. The complainant has not placed on record proof of ownership of alleged piece of land. It is further pleaded that the report of agricultural department clearly state that the crop were damage, nowhere it is mentioned that the seeds were of poor/inferior quality. The complainant in connivance with the employees of Agricultural Department had made a false and fabricated report without cogent evidence because samples of premature crop was not sent to any Laboratory for proper analysis of seed quality. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 18.05.2021 Ex.C1, copy of complaint dated 29.09.2021 Ex.C2, copy of inspection report Ex.C3, photographs of crop Ex.C4 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 02.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit Narender Singh Chauhan Ex.OP1/A, copy of resolution Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 09.11.2023 by suffering separate statement.

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

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased 15Kgs of High Breed paddy seed of PR-7301 variety from the OP no.1 and sowed the said seeds in his fields. OPs supplied the mix quality seeds due to that complainant has suffered a great financial loss. Complainant made a complaint before Deputy Director Agriculture Officer, Karnal for inspection of the crop. The Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, constituted a committee and said Committee has inspected the fields of complainant and found that there are plants of two different varieties and is of different stage. Due to supply of mixed quality of the seed by the OPs, complainant has suffered loss huge financial loss and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsels for OPs, while reiterating the contents of written versions, have vehemently argued that the germination and proper yield is based on various factors such as preparation of the land, fertilization, pest and disease control, proper irrigation, climate and seasonal conditions. He further argued that complainant has neither produced any evidence nor  adopted proper method in sowing the seed. The official of the Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant in the absence of OPs. Hence said inspection report has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The seed supplied by the OPs neither inferior nor mixed variety and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of both the parties.

10.           It is evident from the cash memo Ex.C1 dated 18.05.2021 the complainant purchased 15Kgs seeds of PR-7301  from the OP no.1, amounting to Rs.6000/-. Complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee on 20.09.2021 and Inspection Committee prepared its report Ex.C3. In the said report, it is mentioned that there are plants of two different varieties and is of different stage and there is probability of the loss to the extent of 15% to 20%.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the inspection committee was not sure for actual loss in the fields of complainant.

 11.          Complainant has alleged that there was mixing in the seeds purchased by him and has suffered a huge financial loss. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has failed to examine any other farmers who had also purchased the same variety seeds from the OPs having any complaint with regard to mixing of seeds and also failed to prove on record financial loss suffered due to seed supplied by the OPs. 

12.           It is common practice of farmers to prepare the various types of nurseries of different varieties of seeds by dividing the land in small parts like kyaris. Therefore, the possibility of alleged mixing on the hands of complainant and his labourer cannot be ruled out. Hence, it has not been proved on file that OPs have supplied the mixed variety of the seed to the complainant.

13.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:19.07.2024                                                                    

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                          Member                          Member