Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1098/2012

Sanjay s/o Sh.Bichha Ram, - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Hari Krishan

08 Jun 2017

ORDER

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

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1098 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 09.10.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 08.06.2017.

1. Sanjay aged about 30 years son of Sh. Bichha Ram,
2. Bir Singh aged about 35 years son of Babu Ram, both residents of village Unheri, P.O. Jathlana, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.      

 

                                                                                                                    …Complainants.

                                    Versus

1. M/s New Khad Bhandar, Jathlana, V.P.O. Jathlana, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor Sh. Pirthi Raj. 
2. Kesar Seeds,: Khurpia Farm, Kichha, U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand-263148 through its Proprietor/Managing Director.

 

                                                                                                        ... Respondents.  

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER

 

Present: Sh. Hari Kishan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

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

               Sh. Lalit Kumar Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2. 

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainants have 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. 3,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss of crops of the complainants alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

 2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainants purchased 28 Kgs of paddy seed of Kesar-505, from OP No.1 (manufactured by OP No.2) vide bill No. 22 dated 29.05.2912 for a total sum of Rs. 5040/-( Annexure C-2).  After purchase of abovesaid seed, the complainants had sown the abovesaid Kesar 505 High Breed Seed and prepared the nursery of the abovesaid seed by spending huge amount and prepared as per recommendation by the OPs and then the complainants have planted the paddy saplings in the agriculture land measuring 8 acre. At the time of planation, the complainants had used the fertilizers, pesticides etc. as per recommendation of the OPs and the complainants were astonished when they found that there were three varieties of seeds in the field. One variety ripens at this stage and second variety is still preparing and third variety is at initial stage. The complainant visited the OP No.1 and OpNo.1 came in the fields of complainants and inspected the spot but he has not given any satisfactory reply and he stated that it can be deficient of OP No.2.  Finding no other alternative, complainants gave an application to the Deputy Director (Agriculture), Yamuna Nagar to inspect the paddy crop of the complainants and the Deputy Director constituted the team who visited the spot on 28.09.2012 and submitted their inspection report. Vide their inspection report, the inspection team opined that 20-25% of the paddy crop is ripen and some of the paddy crop is still at the early stage and there is no uniform ripening synchronization and as such it caused great loss to the complainants.   As such, the OPs sold the substandard and mixture paddy seeds to the complainants which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1& 2 appeared and filed its written statement separately.  OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainants have got no locus standi to file the present complaint, complainants are 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 complainants 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 complainants Sanjay purchased 24 Kgs. of paddy seed make Kesar 505 from OP No.1  vide Bill No. 22 dated 29.05.2012 for a total sum of Rs. 5040/-.  The complainants 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 complainants 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 false and frivolous one 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 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainants have got no locus standi to file the present complaint, complainants are not consumer as per definition given in the Consumer Protection Act. The mandatory procedure as laid down under section 13 (1)( C) of the Consumer Protection Act for such complaint has not been followed and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint has been filed just to black mail the Op No.2 and to extract money from the OP No.2. In the present case, there is no adverse report of any laboratory about the quality of seeds. Even otherwise, there is no any complaint from any corner about the said seeds and the lot and batch of paddy seed is still lying with the OP No.2 which can be testified from any laboratory. On merit, It has been further submitted that OP Company follow and maintain the best quality standards in the industry and every batch of each and every produce produced by it is approved for the commercial dispatch and sale only after it meets  the government and more stringent internal quality parameters. The Op No.2 is confident about the quality of its products and also assures that all products of OP No.2 undergo strict quality checks at every stage of production to ensure the farmers get the highest quality seed. The complainant never approached the OP nor any notice of the same has ever been sent to the Op No.2 and reiterated the stand taken by OP No.1. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.                              

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence joint affidavit of Sanjay and Bir Singh complainants as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of pamphlet of Kesar Seed as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Bill No.22 dated 29.05.2012 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of receipt of Rs.1,66,000/- issued by Sarpanch as Annexure C-3, Photo copies of Mahabir Singh KSK Filling Station as Annexure C-4,  Photographs of crop/tubewell as Annexure C-5 and C-6, Photo copy of inspection report as Annexure C-7  and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

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-22 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     Counsel for Op No.2 tendered into evidence Annexure R2/1 to R2/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.                     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.

9.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainants purchased 24 Kgs of paddy seed of Kesar-505 (Manufactured by OP No. 2) for an amount of Rs. 5040/- vide receipt/Bill No. 22 dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure C-2).   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 Deputy Director Agriculture Yamuna Nagar for inspection of the said paddy crop. The three officers of the Agriculture Department visited the field of complainant and submitted their report (Annexure C-7) mentioning therein that 20-25% of other varieties of seeds were found mixed in the paddy crop. Complainants further alleged in their complaint that due to the supplying of substandard and mixed seed, the complainants have suffered a monetary loss and prayed for compensation and referred the case law titled as Jangir Singh Versus Nand Lal, Jagan Nath Seed Merchants, 2003(1) CLT Page 309 (State Commission, Pb). And further referred the case law titled as Bejo Sheetal Seeds Versus Bolla Vnkanna and others, 2002(2) CLT page 469 wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 13 and 21(b)- Defective Seeds- Water melon- Complainant could not get proper crop- Plea of the petitioner that as seeds would have been sent for analysis repelled- The seeds purchased already sown in the soil and not possible to test the quality- Statement of Horticulture Officer and another officer on record who were of the opinion that seeds were of defective quality- The orders of Fora below in allowing the complaint requires no interference under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Act and further referred the case law titled as National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy 2004(2) CLT page 301 and Area Manager, National Seeds Corporation Ltd. versus A. Karuppanan Servai & Others 1(1996) CPJ page 110(N.C). 

10.                   Learned counsel for the OPs 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 OPs hotly argued that so many persons named in the bills Annexure R-1 to R-22 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.2 also draw our attention towards the recommendation literature in which 5 Kg. seed has been recommended for one acre and license issued by the office of Deputy Director Agriculture Cum Licensing Authority, Karnal to M/s Kesar Enterprises Limited(Annexure R2/7) to carry out the business for selling the seeds. Learned counsel for the OPs further urged that as per report of the Agriculture Department, it is clear that before spot inspection of the fields of complainants, no identification was conducted by the officials of Revenue Department as no Khasra Number have been mentioned in the report by the inspecting team. Learned counsel for the OPs further urged that without identification 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 complainants in their report and referred the case laws titled as Shamsher Singh Versus Bagri Beej Bhandar & Another, IV(2013) CPJ page 186 (NC) and Banta Ram Versus Jai Bharat Beej Company and another, II(2013) CPJ page 617 (NC).  

11.                   It is not disputed that complainants had purchased 24 Kgs of paddy seed of Kesar-505 (Manufactured by OP No. 2), for an amount of Rs. 5040/- from the OP No.1 vide Bill No. 22 dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure C-2).   

12.                   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 their contention they placed the report of Agriculture Department Annexure C-7.

13.                   Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Annexure C-7 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Annexure C-3), 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, Jathalana 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.

14.                   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.

15.                   Apart from above noted facts, we are of the considered view that the officials of the Agriculture Department have submitted report 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. Furthermore, inspection team has totally failed to explain the criteria for assessing the percentage of 20-25% 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 20-25% of other varieties were found mixed in the paddy crop, it does not mean that there was loss of 25% of the crop. Further, the said committee has nowhere mentioned in the report (Annexure C-7) that there was any loss to the complainants, even, the complainants have also 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 Annexure C-7 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 varieties.    

16.                   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. 08.06.2017.

           

                                                                               (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

 

                  (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)           (S.C.SHARMA)

                   MEMBER                                            MEMBER