Haryana

Karnal

853/2008

Jagdish Chand S/o Maam Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sahib Seeds Limited., M/s Sahib Seeds Limited - Opp.Party(s)

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.853 of 2008

                                                               Date of instt. 1.12.2008

                                                               Date of decision:30.09.2015

 

Jagdish Chander son of Sh.Maam Chand resident of village Shahpur tehsil and district Karnal.

                                                                 ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1. M/s Sahib Seeds Ltd. Shop No.8, Subzi Mandi Seed Market, Karnal through its proprietor.

 

2.M/s Sahib Seeds Limited, S.C.F.11, New Subzi Mandi, Karnal through its Manager.

 

                                                           ……… Opposite parties.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 

 Present:       Sh.S.S.Chauhan Advocate for  the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Kapoor Advocate for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased three bags of  P-1460  from the Opposite Party ( in short OP) No.1 vide bill no.430 dated 28.4.2008.  OP No.1 assured that the seed was of very good quality and the same would give yield of 30 quintals per acre.  The complainant prepared nursery and when nursery was ready for plantation, the same was planted in three acres of land  as per instructions of the Ops. He sprayed pesticides and fertilizers   from time to time as per instructions of the Ops and spent more than Rs.10,000/- per acre. When crop was ready, it was found that half of the crop was ready for harvesting and half of the crop was   not coming out. After seeing that situation, he approached the OP no.1 and told about the situation. The OP No.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the Ops inspected the site and found that  half of the crop was ready  whereas some crop was not coming out. It has further been submitted that on 1.10.2008, he moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal to  inspect the fields and report about the loss.  A duly constituted committee by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal visited his fields on 15.10.2008 and observed that there was no uniformity in maturity/ripening  in   paddy fields. Approximately,15% plants were in flowering stage,  50% in dough stage and remaining 35% were physiological mature/ripened and ready for harvesting. Committee also concluded   that uneven maturity/ripening  caused loss in quality and quantity of paddy and estimated the loss  as  65% per acre in paddy yield. After receiving report from the Deputy Director agriculture, Karnal, he approached the Ops  that there was  80% mixture in the seed and requested them to compensate him, but the OPs did not pay any heed to his request. He  had suffered loss to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per acre on account of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops  who supplied him seed of inferior quality. He claimed Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation, Rs.50,000/-  for mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses.

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable in thepresent form; that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint.  

                   On merits, it has been submitted that Ops sold the seed to the complainant in  packing and there was no  such complaint from any other customer as the quality of the seed was very good and all were fully satisfied regarding growth. It has further been submitted that report of DDA, Karnal was  false and incorrect and the same was prepared  in the office.  No official of the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal  visited the spot and inspected the crop.  The complainant never met the OP to complain about the defective quality of the seed.  The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, he tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4.

 

4.                In evidence of the Ops, affidavit of Sh.Subhash Khurana Ex.O1  has  only been tendered.

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

6.                There is no dispute between the parties  regarding the fact that complainant had purchased three bags of P-1460 paddy seed from OP No.1, vide bill No.430 dated 24.08.2008.    As per case of the complainant he raised nursery  from the said seed and got the same transplanted in his land measuring three acres, but later on it was found that half of the paddy crop had ripened  for harvesting and the half was not ready. The complainant relied  upon the report of Technical Committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, on his application. The   copy of report is  Ex.C4, according to which the Technical Committee visited his fields on 15.10.2008 and observed that there was no uniformity in the maturity/ripening of the paddy fields. Approximately 15 % plants were in flowering stage, 50%  in dough stage  and remaining 35% were physiological mature and ready for harvesting.  It assessed the loss as 65%  per acre due to uneven maturity/ripening.

7.                The learned counsel for the OP laid stress on the contention that no notice regarding inspection of the field of the complainant was ever given to the OPs and report was prepared behind their back at the instance of the complainant. Moreover, no date regarding preparation of the report has been mentioned on the report Ex.C4. Therefore, such report cannot form the basis for arriving at the conclusion that seed was defective and of mixed varieties.  It has further been argued that no khasra girdwari or Jamabandi record has been produced by the complainant to prove  that he had planted paddy crop in his three acres of land. Even in the report Ex.C4, khasra numbers of the land inspected by the committee have not been mentioned. Therefore, the evidence of the complainant is not sufficient to establish that OPs had supplied f defective seeds of  mixed varieties.

8.                During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant produced copy of khasra girdwari in respect of land measuring 30 Kanals 6 Marlas for the crop of kharif 2007 to  Rabi 2009.  In respect of the said land, Jagdish was recorded   in cultivating possession as co sharer.  In the crop of Kharif 2008, Jeeri  (paddy crop), was recorded in the khasra  girdwari record.  As the complainant found that his paddy was unevenly maturing, he could complain about the seed to the OPs and if the Ops did not pay any heed to his complaint, he could have only option to approach to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal for inspecting his fields by Technical  persons of the Agriculture Department and report about the condition of his paddy crop.  The complainant moved the  application, the copy of which is Ex.C3, to Deputy Director  Agriculture, Karnal for getting inspected his fields for assessment of his loss. The said application was moved on 1.10.2008.Thereafter, Deputy Director  Agriculture, Karnal

constituted a Technical Committee consisting of  Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer,  Subject matter specialist, Karnal and Sr. Coordinator, Krishi   Vigan Kendra, Chaudhary Charan Singh Agriculture University, Hissar, Karnal. They inspected the fields of the complainant on 15.10.2008 and observed that there was uneven maturity/ripening in the paddy crop of the complainant due to which estimated loss could be 65% per acre. The complainant in his affidavit Ex.C1  has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. The Ops might have sold the same variety of seed of the same lot to other farmers also.  Those farmers could be the best witness to support the plea of the Ops that seed of that lot was of good quality, but affidavit of none of such farmers has been produced by the OPs for the reasons best known to them. The only evidence of the OPs is affidavit of Sh.Subhash Khurana, proprietor of OP No.1 who has reasserted the contents of the written statement. His statement by way of affidavit is not sufficient to discard the evidence of the complainant. From the evidence, it is established that seed supplied by the Ops was of mixed variety due to which there was uneven maturity/ripening of the paddy crop planted by the complainant in his three acres of land from that seed.

  9.              As per report of Technical Committee appointed by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, Ex.C4, the estimated loss could be 65% per acre in paddy yield on account of supply of mixed varieties of seed by the OP to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he was assured of 30 quintal yield per acre but he got yield of 17 quintal per acre. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence from which even an inference may be drawn that average yield of P-1460 could be 30 quintal per acre.   Production/yield of any crop depends upon so many factors and not only on the variety of the seed. Technical Committee assessed the loss just by approximation.  The complainant by doing extra labour could certainly get more yield by harvesting different varieties crop at different intervals after maturity/ripening of each variety.  Under such circumstances, the self serving statement of the complainant by way of affidavit that he suffered loss to the tune of  Rs.40,000/- per acre does not inspire any confidence.  However, at the same time, this fact cannot be ignored that complainant must have suffered some loss on account of mixed varieties  crop of paddy in his fields. Looking into all facts and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable and justified to assess the  approximate loss as Rs.8,000/- per acre.

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion,  we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.24000/- to the complainant as loss suffered by him on account of mixed varieties of seed supplied to him by the Ops.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/-  as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him and  for the litigation expenses. The OPs shall  make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:30.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

Present:        Sh.S.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Kapoor Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 30.9.2015.

 

Announced
dated:18.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

Present:        Sh.S.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Kapoor Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:30.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member