Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/269/2018

Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Punjab Beej Company - Opp.Party(s)

Jitender Thakar

16 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

Complaint no.269/2018.

Date of instt.18.09.2018. 

                                                                        Date of Decision:16.03.2021.

 

Anil Kumar son of Bhagwan Dass resident of Fatehabad.

 

                                                                                                ..Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. M/s Punjab Beej Company, 38-39, Shivalya Market, G.T.Road, Fatehabad through its Proprietor.
2. M/s H.M.Clause Indian Private Limited D No.6-98/4, SY No.563/PARD,Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy, District Gowdavelli 507401 (Telangana) through its Managing Director.

..Respondents/OPs. 

    

      Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986                               

 

Before:                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                             Smt.Sukhdeep Kaur, Member.

 

Argued by:          Sh. Jitender Thakker, Advocate for complainant.

 Sh. V.K. Mehta, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER

                              The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he and his brother for the purpose of sowing carrot in their respective land had purchased carrot seed from Op No.1 vide invoice No.23639 dated 25.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.7920/-. The invoice was issued in the name of Nihal Singh Mali, c/o Bhagwan Dass. The complainant had sown the seed in his one acre of land situated in Basti Bhiwan, Fatehabad which was in the name of his father and was possession of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was under the impression that there shall be good quantity of crops but on 24.01.2018 the carrot crops started getting destroyed and due to this he moved an application to DHO Baghbani Vibhag, Fatehabad which was further moved to CCSHAU and the OP No.2 was also informed for inspection. After inspection by the authorized persons, it was reported that there was delay in sowing the same which had resulted into damage of the crops.  It has been further averred that at the time of selling the carrot seed, the Op No.1 had not informed the time of sowing of same and also did not give any instructions to be followed while sowing the seeds. Due to inaction on the part of the Ops, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.1,50,000/- as the complainant has  been deprived of any crops from the said land measuring one acre besides making the payment of cost of carrot seed. The complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops which had given false and frivolous reply and failed to compensate the complainant on account of damage of crop. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure C1 and affidavit of Sh.Vinod Kumar as Annexure C2 besides documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C21.

2.                           On notice OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, concealment of material facts, compliance under Section 13 (c) and locus standi etc. has been made. It has been further submitted that the complainant and his brother have not purchased the carrot seeds from the Op No.1 rather the seed was purchased by one Vinod  and no bill was issued in the name of Nihal Singh Mali c/o Bhagwan Dass. It has been further submitted that so many  farmer of the area had purchased the carrot seed of same batch being and had sown the same at proper time and got good crop. The complainant has not mentioned the killa number of the land where the seeds in question were sown. No notice for inspection of land was given to the OPs and as per report dated 09.04.2018 the site was inspected on 20.03.2018 in the presence of DHO and after inspection it was found that the seeds were sown on 26.10.2017 which is against the recommendation of the HAU as the time of sowing the carrot seed was from month of August to September but the same has been sown after fixed time and due to which the crop has been destroyed.  It has been further submitted that the crop was sown at belated stage, therefore, the crop was not matured.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Other contents have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Ravinder Jain as Annexure R1 besides documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R7.

3.                     We have duly heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record.  It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the carrot seed from Op No.1 (Annexure C4) and the same was sown in the land which was in the name of his father and was in the possession of the complainant. However, the crop of the complainant was destroyed and it did not give any yield.  He had moved an application to the concerned authorities which inspected the field and in the report dated 09.04.2018 it was opined that there was delay in sowing the seed and due to this the crop got destroyed. It is the further case of the complainant that the Ops have never disclosed the time for sowing the carrot seed and even the same has not been mentioned on the packing of the seed. It was not disclosed by the Ops that the time for sowing the carrot seed have already lapsed and was sold to the complainant  when the sowing period had already passed.

4.                                 Per contra, it is the case of the OPs that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops because the complainant is not the consumer of the ops as the seed was never sold to the complainant. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the Ops that the seed was sown at a belated stage as the best time for sowing the seeds is from 1^st September to 15 October and this fact is also mentioned in the instructions which has been placed by the complainant himself as Annexure C13 duly supported by the expert report dated 09.04.2018 Annexure R6 wherein it has been mentioned that the best time for sowing the seed was from August to September. It has been further argued that the time for sowing the carrot seed was duly disclosed to the complainant and for the sake of arguments if it is presumed that the time was not disclosed to the complainant, in that eventuality, no deficiency in service can be fastened upon the ops because the complainant himself has claimed to be an expert of agriculture.

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                     It is not disputed that the seed in question was sold by OP No.1 on 25.10.2017. The same is also evident from invoice No.23639 placed on file as Annexure C4. It is also not disputed that the seed in question was manufactured/produced by OP No.2. It is also not disputed that germination of the seed was good. However, lateron, the carrot crop of the complainant was destroyed. Therefore, on the complaint of the complainant the crop in dispute was inspected on 02.03.2018 by the scientist of Haryana Agriculture University in the presence of District Horticulture Officer. After inspection of the crop, it was observed by the team that as per guidelines of H.A.U. the proper time for sowing the carrot crop is during the month of August and September whereas in the present case the carrot was sown on 26.10.2017 i.e. after a lapse of appropriate time. Therefore, the crop could not get sufficient time for getting matured and developed the problem of bolting.

7.                     As discussed above, it is the case of the complainant that there is deficiency on the part of OP No.1 in selling the seed in question after expiry of the appropriate time for sowing the seed. Moreover, there was no instruction on the packing regarding the period of sowing and as such there is also deficiency on the part of OP No.2 being manufacturer of the seed in question. On the other hand, it is also the case of the Ops that since the seed was sown by the complainant after passing of appropriate time as such the complainant himself is liable for damage of the crop.

8.                     In view of the above said discussion the only issue involved in the present case is as to whether there is deficiency on the part of the Ops in selling the seed after lapse of appropriate period of sowing.

9.                     The Op No.1 is approved distributor and license holder for selling the seeds of vegetables and crops. He is supposed to have every knowledge regarding the appropriate period of sowing of vegetables and crops. It is one of his responsibility to guide the farmer regarding the proper time of sowing of crops/vegetables. However, in the present case the OP No.1 has not  placed on record any evidence that he had guided the customer or communicated him the instructions regarding proper time for sowing the carrot seed and whereas he has sold the seed in question on 23.10.2017 i.e. after a lapse of appropriate period of sowing. Similarly, Op No.2 had also not placed on record any evidence to prove that the packing of the seed was having instructions regarding appropriate period of sowing. From perusal of the correspondence sent by the complainant placed on record, it is evident that the complainant is having long experience and has expertise in agriculture. Therefore, he is also supposed to have knowledge regarding  the proper period of sowing of carrots.

10.                   In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the considered opinion that the crop has been destroyed on account of contributory negligence of the complainant and the Ops. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed.

11.                   Regarding quantum of loss, it is pertinent to mention here that the inspecting team vide its inspection report has not given any opinion regarding the percentage of loss in the crop in question whereas the complainant has alleged complete damage and has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Compensation sought by the complainant seems to be on very higher side. We quantify the total loss in one acre of land to the tune of Rs.80,000/- in lump sum. Since, it is a case of contributory negligence as such we direct the OPs for making a payment of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months otherwise the amount shall carry an interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint. Copy of this order be Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 16.03.2021.

 

(Sukhdeep Kaur)                   (Raghbir Singh)            

     Member                            President