BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No: 67 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 24.02.2016.
Date of Order: 21.06.2017.
Pritam Singh son of Sh.Jai Singh resident of village Chaushala Tehsil Kalayat District Kaithal.
Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Punjab Seeds Store, near Kanwar Sain Chowk, Railway Road, Tohana District Fatehabad.
- M/s HI-Tech Kamboj Seeds, Shop NO.19, Opposite New Grain Market, Indri (Karnal) through its Proprietor.
Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President. Sh. R.S.Panghal, Member. Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Argued by: Sh.K.R.Jangra, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Harpal Singh, counsel for OP No.1. Sh.N.S.Malik, counsel for OP No.2.
ORDER:
The complainant Pritam Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs).
2. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant in order to get high yield of crops purchased three bags of paddy seeds of marka Muchal 1401 (weighing 10 KG each) from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.12,00/- (Rs.400/- for each bag) on 20.06.2015 vide bill No.344 for sowing and planting the same in his land as well as the land taken by him on lease. At the time of purchase the Op No.1 had assured that the seeds in question are unique and of good quality and the same will give a yield of at least 40 to 50 Maunds per acre. Complainant transplanted/sown the seeds in 8 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of village Chaushala Tehsi Kalayat District Kaithal. It has been further averred that after germination, the complainant noticed that the plants were of different heights as some of the plants were having higher height and some of the plants were in dwarf size. It has been further averred that the seeds sold by OP No.1 were not pure and were of mixed qualities, therefore, plants having different heights had grown. Due to this reason, the complainant approached Op No.1 but it did not visit the fields of the complainant, therefore, he moved an application to Deputy Director of Agriculture Department, Kaithal who thereafter constituted a committee to inspect the fields of the complainant. The committee visited the fields of the complainant on 26.10.2015 and in their report they have opined that 40 to 45 % plants of paddy were of different varieties and due to this the quality of the Basmity paddy had become zero. He requested the Ops to compensate for the said loss, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking direction to opposite parties to pay claim amount of Rs.3,20,000/- on account of loss of paddy crops and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of consolidated damages for financial loss besides litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit annexure CW1 and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4.
3. On being served, OPs appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive because the compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of CP Act has not been. The complaint is not maintainable as the same has been filed on the basis of report given by Agriculture Team which has been made in collusion with the complainant as no prior notice was given to the OP No.1. It has been further submitted that the Op No.1 had purchased the seeds in question from Op No.2 and further it had sold the same to the complainant in sealed and packed condition. It has been further submitted that the complainant has not produced any J-Farm qua selling of crop in disputed season and the condition of the crop cannot be attributed to the quality of seed only because other factors including water quality for irrigation long dry spell sowing methodology and soil physical conditions also affects the yield of crop. The lots of paddy seeds before releasing the market have undergone various tests and examinations and the same had been released to the market as per Seed Act. It has been further submitted that the complainant in his complaint has nowhere mention about khewat, khatuni and khasra number of the land where the seeds had been sown and even no lease deed or particulars of the land taken on lease had been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint. As per norms of the agriculture university 8 KG paddy seeds have been recommended for one acre of land but as per complaint he had sown 30 KG of seeds in 8 acres of land which clearly shows that the complainant either had sown some other seeds or had mixed some other seeds in the purchased seeds. It has been further submitted that the present complaint has been filed on the basis of report of agriculture team which had been obtained in collusion with the complainant despite the fact that the Agriculture Department had no authority to inspect the fields of the farmers regarding any complaint of poor quality seeds. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. OP No.2 in its separate reply has submitted that Op No.2 has never sold the variety of Muchhal 1401 and the variety of seeds was of PB-1401 Pusa Basmati 1401. It has been further submitted that as per norms of the Agriculture University 8 KG seeds per acre are required but the complainant had only purchased and sown 30 KGs of seeds in 8 acres of land. The Op No.2 has taken more or less the same grounds as taken by Op No.1 in its reply and submitted that the present complaint has been filed on the basis of assumptions and presumptions that the seeds were mixed despite the fact that there is no evidence of any kind. Other allegations levelled in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Sh.Jorawar Singh as Annexure RW1, affidavit of Sh.Manjeet Ram as Annexure RW2 and document Annexure R1.
5. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the material available on the case file has been perused meticulously.
6. On careful examination of the documents and affidavits of parties read with arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is transpired that the complainant has been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence. There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased 30 KGs seeds from OP No.1 vide cash memo which has been placed on the case file as Annexure C-1. So far the plea of OPs qua identification of the land is concerned it is worthwhile to mention here that in Annexure 3 (jamabandi for the year 2013-2014) it is clearly mentioned that the complaint and his family members are in cultivating possession of the land situated within the revenue estate of village Chaushala Tehsil Kalayat District Kaithal. No doubt in the inspection report (Annexure C2) the officials of Agriculture Department had not mentioned any rect.and kill numbers of the land inspected by them but in this report it has been specifically mentioned that in 8 acres of land in addition to the main crop there are 40 % to 45 % plants of different variety of paddy and the same had already been ripen. The officials of the Agriculture Department had also assessed the financial loss to the tune of 40 to 45 %. The submission made by learned counsel for the OPs that the report dated 29.10.2015 cannot be read in evidence as the fields have not been inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana with regard to constitution of inspection team is not tenable. In case any lapse has been committed by the Agriculture Department in constitution of the team in that eventuality the complainant cannot be held liable for the same and the complainant cannot be allowed to suffer on account of lapse, if any on the part of Agriculture Department. We thus hold that the report of officials of Agriculture Department Annexure C2 can very well be read in evidence. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Dharam Pal & Sons and others Vs. Som Parkash II (2014) CPJ 703 (NC) wherein it has been held that Seeds-Defects Loss suffered-Inspection of field-Deficiency in service-Unfair trade practice- District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission dismissed appeal- Hence, revision- As per report complainant had suffered loss in his paddy crop to the extent of 50 % on account of substandard quality of seeds sold to by him OPs. There is nothing to lable it as any ill-will by members of joint inspection team and seller of seed-Deficiency proved-Compensation awarded. Moreover, there is nothing on the file to show that the officers while giving the report Annexure C2 were partial and the plea qua collusion of the Agriculture Officers with the complainant is also rejected.
7. Now we deal with another plea advanced by learned counsel for the parties with respect to non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. No doubt the complainant did not apply for sending the sample of the purchased seed to the laboratory for test as required under Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act. Usually a farmer purchases the quantity of seeds, insecticide or herbicide which is required by him for sowing or spraying in his fields, it is not expected from a farmer to conserve certain quantity of seed for getting the same tested in the lab to comply with the above said provisions. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant on this ground. Holding these vies we have relied upon the observations of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission contained in a case titled as National Seeds Corporation Vs. M.Madhusudan Reddy, 2004 (2) CLT 301 wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that a farmer is not expected to conserve certain portion of seed to meet the ludicrous expectation of the petitioner to produce some seeds from somewhere to get it tested to meet the requirements of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is concluded from the evidence adduced by the complainant has been proved on record that mixed seeds were sold to the complainant therefore, he has suffered financial loss to the tune of 40 to 45 % as is clear from the report Annexure C2. Since it is very well established that the seeds were mixed, therefore, the plea of the OPs that minimum 8 KGs seeds are required for one acre stands as per the norms of Haryana Agriculture University stands in-fructuous and is rejected.
9. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances we reached at a conclusion that if the complainant had been able to receive full amount of crop in 8 acre then he might have received Rs.2,00,000/- but as per the report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C2) the complainant had suffered loss to the tune of 40 to 45 % of crop, therefore, the end of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to pay Rs.80,000/- in lump sum, for the loss suffered by him along with interest @ @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization which shall be paid by the OPs jointly and severally. The compliance of order be made within 30 days. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM Dt.21.06.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal)
Member Member
