Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1115/2012

Prem Pal S/o Mukandi Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s New Khad Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Pal Khajuri

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

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

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1115 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 15.10.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 09.03.2017

Prem Pal aged about 58 years son of Sh. Mukandi Lal, resident of Village Barsan, Sub Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s New Khad Bhandar, Jathlana, District Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/ authorized person. 
2. Kesar Seeds, North India Office: Khurpia Farm, Kichha, U.S. Nagar-263148, Uttarakhand, through its authorized signatory/Chairman. 

                                                                                                          ...Respondents.  

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Raj Pal Khajuri, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

              Sh. S.S.Saini, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1. 

              OP No.2 already ex-parte.  

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 96,000/- as compensation on account of damage of crop and expenses incurred on the preparation of field and further to pay cost of seed as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased 6 Kgs of paddy seed of Kesar-55, from OP No.1 (manufactured by OP No.2) vide bill No. 17 dated 19.05.2012 for a total sum of Rs. 1260/-( Annexure C-1).  As per instructions, the complainant got prepared the fields and after proper preparation the complainant planted paddy crop in two acres. Thereafter, the complainant looked after and fertilized, nourished and watered the fields and now when the crop came at the end of fruit i.e. Bali there is a mixing of seed of other variety and bali were coming out as dry, which shows that there is major diseases in the seed of paddy crop due to which the entire crop in both acre of land has been totally damaged.  The complainants approached the Op No.1 and asked about the fact and requested to inspect the damage in the crop but the Op No.1 kept the matter pending on one pretext or the other and did not come at the spot to see the damaged crop. Finding no other alternative, complainant moved an application to the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri for inspection of the fields and to report about the mixture of seed. On the said application, the inspection team consisting of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri, Variety Control Inspector, Yamuna Nagar and Agriculture Development Officer (PP) Radaur has inspected the spot on 18.09.2012 and report about the fact that there is a mixture of 30-35% of other variety seed in the crop and this seed does not complete the standard of hybrid seed quality.  As such, the OPs sold the substandard and mixture paddy seeds to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainant has got no locus standi, complainant is not the consumer as per the definition given in the Consumer Protection Act, the mandatory procedure as laid down under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act for such complaints has not been followed, the present complaint has been filed just to black mail the OP No.1 and to extract money from the OP No.1. The complainant had not placed any revenue record showing that they had actually sown the paddy crop in their fields. The present complaint is not maintainable qua the OP No.1 because the Op No.1 used to sell the said paddy seeds in sealed packets/ bags, as it is received from the Maharaj Pesticides Store, Kalanaur and has never tempered with the sealed packets. On merit, it has been admitted that the complainant purchased 6 Kgs. of paddy seed make Kesar 55 from OP No.1  vide Bill No. 17 dated 21.05.2012 for a total sum of Rs. 1260/-. The complainant has not produced any record or document qua the preparation of field for planting the paddy crop. The complainant never met the OP No.1 after the purchase of said seeds and no complaint has ever been made to the OP No.1. The complainant be put to strict proof of the same as no notice of inspection has ever issued to the OP No.1. If there is any such report, the same is null and void and is without any notice to the OP No.1.  Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint against the OP No.1.

4.                     OP No. 2 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.10.2014.

5.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence, hence evidence of the complainant was closed by court order dated 30.05.2016. However, at the time of filing of complaint complainant tendered short affidavit alongwith invoice No. 17 dated 21.05.2012 as Ex. C-1, Report of Agriculture Department as Ex. C-2, Photo copy of pamphlet as Ex. C-3, Photograph of paddy crop as Ex. C-4 in support of his complaint.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for Op No.1 tendered into evidence Photo copies of bills issued to various farmers as Annexure R-1 to R-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     It is not disputed that complainant had purchased 6 Kgs of paddy seed of Kesar-55 (Manufactured by OP No. 2), for an amount of Rs. 1260/- from the OP No.1 vide Bill No. 17 dated 21.05.2012 (Ex. C-1).   

 

9.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased 6 Kgs of paddy seed of Kesar-55 (Manufactured by OP No. 2) for an amount of Rs. 1260/- vide receipt/Bill No. 17 dated 21.05.2012 (Ex.C-1).   Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the seed supplied by the OP No.1 was having mixing of other varieties and in this regard the complainant moved an application to the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer for inspection of the said paddy crop. The three officers of the Agriculture Department visited the field of complainant and submitted their report (Ex. C-2) mentioning therein that 30-35% balia has ripened and remaining paddy crop is ready to ripe. Thus, approximately 30-35% of other varieties were found mixed in the paddy crop. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that due to the supplying of substandard and mixed seed, the complainant has suffered a monetary loss and prayed for compensation.  

10.                   Learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued that the report is nothing but it is a waste paper as no notice was ever given either to the manufacturer or to the dealer before inspecting the field of the complainant. There is also a mandatory provision under section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provisions. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 hotly argued that so many persons named in the bills Annexure R-1 to R-13 purchased the same seed of the same manufacturing company but none of them has filed any complaint alleging therein that there was any mixing in the seed in question. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further urged that as per report of the agriculture department, it is clear that before spot inspection of the field of complainant, no demarcation was conducted by the official of Revenue Department as no Khasra Number have been mentioned in the report by the inspecting team. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further urged that without demarcation of field, it cannot be stated as to which field the inspection report pertains. So, it is quite clear that the inspecting team has tried to give undue benefits to the complainant in their report and referred the case laws titled as Anand Singh Vs. Khurana Seed Store and another, 2007(1) CPC page 95 Haryana State Commission, Panchkula, Narender Kumar Versus M/s Arora Trading Company and others, 2007(2) CLT page 683 Haryana State Commission, Panchkula.

11.                   The contention of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality and that was also having mixture of seed of different varieties and to prove his contention he placed the report of Agriculture Department Ex. C-2.

12.                   Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Ex. C-2 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Ex. C-2), it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by three agriculture officers, one Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri,   Quality Control Inspector, Yamuna Nagar, and Agriculture Development Officer, (P) Radaur whereas as per guidelines/instructions issued by Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department Panchkula, vide memo No. 52-70 dated 3.1.2002 TA/SS, for spot inspection there should be three officers out of this two officers from Agriculture Department and one from Krishi Vigyan Kender KGK/HAU and one member of the concerned seed agency but in this case neither any scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kender nor any representative from concerned seed company has been associated at the time of inspection of the field. Even no respectable person like Sarpacnh, Panch or Lumberdar or any neighborer of land has been joined by the inspecting team at the time of inspection of the field. Besides it, the said report is also not authenticate because the alleged inspection has been made by the officials of the Agriculture Department without getting the land identified from any official of the revenue department prior to spot inspection as no Killa Number or Khasra number has been mentioned in the report and as such it cannot be said with certainty as to which field the inspection report in question pertains. The same view has been held in case titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, IV (2013) CPJ page 186 National Commission, it has been held that Agriculture-Defective Seed-Growth of crop not satisfactory-Loss suffered-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed the complaint- State Commission accepted appeal and dismissed the complaint- Hence revision- When there is complaint by the farmers regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kender- Said inspection had not been followed by the Agriculture Department while giving their report- Factum of the complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or other evidence- No illegality or irregularity in impugned order. Revision dismissed.

13.                   There is a mandatory provision under section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provision nor moved any application to the concerned authority i.e. Agriculture Department or this Forum to get the sample from the OPs and send for analysis.  Further no any notice has been served upon the OPs prior to inspection of the field and thus the report in question prepared at the back of the OPs is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Without any expert evidence on the record as provided in section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act it cannot be said that seed sold to the complainants were adulterated and were of inferior quality. Reliance on this point can be taken from the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies 2007 (2) CLT page 683 and Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others 2013 Volume 2 page 616 National Commission wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that petitioner had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under provision of section 13(1)         ( C ) of the Consumer Protection Act  1986- He had 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. The observations mentioned in the case laws titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies & Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others (supra) are fully applicable in the present case.

14.                   Apart from above noted facts, complainant has also failed to file any revenue record i.e. Khasra Girdawari showing his cultivation of land or file any documentary evidence to prove that he has cultivated any land after taking from any other person on lease or any other way. Furthermore, inspection team has totally failed to explain the criteria for assessing the percentage of 30-35% of mixing as mentioned in the report. In the absence of method adopted by the said team, it cannot be said that the criteria adopted by the said committee is correct. The said committee simply mentioned that 30-35% paddy has ripened and remaining paddy is ready to ripe, it does not mean that there was loss of 30-35%. The complainant has totally failed to prove any loss by cogent evidence. So, after going through the above noted discussion and law we are of the considered view that the report Ex. C-2 has no value in the eyes of law and there is no other evidence on the file to prove that seed in question was of inferior quality and that the same was having mixture of the different variety.    

15.                   Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 09.03.2017           

                                                                               (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                              (S.C.SHARMA)                          PRESIDENT

                                MEMBER