Haryana

Kaithal

297/21

Paramjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sat Raj & Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sanjeev Aggarwal

09 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 297 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:    03.12.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:       09.01.2024.

 

Paramjeet Singh s/o Shri Inder Singh, aged about 70 years, r/o village Nand Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

1. M/s Sat Raj & Company, Mal Godam Road, Kaithal, through its Proprietor.
2. Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Tilak Bazaar, Hisar-125001, through its authorized person/owner.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Sanjeev Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Kabir Dhall, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the OPs.

2.                It is alleged by the complainant that the complainant is the owner of land measuring 31 kanal 16 marla, according to jamabandi for the year 2017-18 situated in village Nand Singh Wala, District Kaithal. He also took the land on lease measuring 8 acres, situated in his village, owned by Jarnail Singh s/o Shri Sadhu Singh and Satan Singh s/o Shri Sadhu Singh @ Rs.65,000/- per acre for the crop year 2021-22. That he purchased 10 bags of Muchal Paddy seeds No.PB-1401 from OP No.1 vide bill No.931 dated 07.05.2021 amounting to Rs.7500/- for paddy crops, which was produced and marketed by OP No.2. That he sown the said seeds as per instructions of OPs in 10 acres of land, but after four months, the crop were rise up, which transpired that the seeds of Muchal Paddy given by OP No.1 were found of different different quality. Upon which, on 02.09.2021 he moved an application in CM Window vide Grievance No.CMOFF/N/2021/077026 dated 02.09.2021, upon which, Agriculture Development Officer, HAS-II, Kaithal-1, Block  Agriculture Officer and Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer on 14.09.2021 visited his fields and inspected the crop of 10 acres and found that 5-7% paddy crops were of different kind. The average yield in the locality is about 40 quintal per acre and market rate is Rs.2500/- per quintal and in that manner, he suffered a financial loss of Rs.15,000/- per acre, total  Rs.1,50,000/-. The above act of OPs of selling sub-standard seeds, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered physical and mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their respective written statements.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement stated that the complainant did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 38(2) of CP Act 2019. That the mandatory instructions of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 03.01.2002 have not been complied with, according to which, the fields of farmer are to be inspected by Committee comprising of two officers of agriculture department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and OPs. The alleged report has been prepared in gross violation of Seed Rules 1968, which are in consonance with Seed Act. The seed in question has been sold to the complainant in a sealed packing. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

5.                OP No.2, in its written statement stated that the complainant did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 38(2) of CP Act 2019. That the mandatory instructions of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 03.01.2002 have not been complied with, according to which, the fields of farmer are to be inspected by Committee comprising of two officers of agriculture department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and OPs. The alleged report has been prepared in gross violation of Seed Rules 1968, which are in consonance with Seed Act. As per Amended Seed Rule 1974, if a farmer has lodged the complaint in writing alleging that failure of his crop is due to defective quality of seeds, the seed inspector should investigate the complaint and draw the sample if required from remaining seed. He should also collect Tag, Labels, Bill and empty bags of the concerned lot but it is gross violation on the part of inspecting team in the instant case. The OP No.2 is acclaimed and very reputed firm in the seed business and complies with all set standards and is recognized by Government. The OPs has sold the same batch seed in question to numerous farmers through its authorized dealers who have got the yield to their satisfaction regarding quality and quantity. Also the seed of the batch in question had been sold to M/s Sudarshan and Co. and got certified from the Govt. Seed Testing Laboratory Sirsa vide Lab Test report which was issued by them after completion of all sort of procedure. These certificate fulfill the requirement of Paddy Genetic and Physical Standards as per Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards fixed by Indian Govt. vide their compilation 2013. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

6.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 & Annexure-C8.

7.                On the other hand, OPs, in their evidence tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-12.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is the owner of land measuring 31 kanal 16 marla, situated in village Nand Singh Wala, District Kaithal and also took the land on lease measuring 8 acres, situated in his village, owned by Jarnail Singh s/o Shri Sadhu Singh and Satan Singh s/o Shri Sadhu Singh @ Rs.65,000/- per acre for the crop year 2021-22. He further argued that the complainant purchased 10 bags of Muchal Paddy seeds No.PB-1401, from OP No.1, vide bill No.931 dated 07.05.2021 amounting to Rs.7500/- for paddy crops, produced and marketed by OP No.2. He further argued that the complainant sown the said seeds, as per instructions of OPs, in 10 acres of land, but after four months, the crop were rise up, which transpired that the seeds of Muchal Paddy, given by OP No.1 were found of different different quality. He further argued that on 02.09.2021, the complainant moved an application in CM Window, upon which, on 14.09.2021, Agriculture Development Officer, HAS-II, Kaithal-1, Block Agriculture Officer and Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer visited his fields and inspected the crop of 10 acres and found that 5-7% paddy crops were of different kind. He further argued that the average yield in the locality is about 40 quintal per acre and market rate is Rs.2500/- per quintal and in that manner, the complainant suffered a financial loss of Rs.15,000/- per acre, total  Rs.1,50,000/-. He further argued that the above act of OPs of selling sub-standard seeds, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part. In order to support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case laws 1(2012) CPJ 1 SC titled National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr.; 2008(3) CLT 143 titled Ankur Seeds P. Ltd. Vs. Kondabrolu Hasen Rao & Ors.; II (200() CPJ 24 (NC) titled National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nalia Narsimha  Rao; 2018(2) CCC 831 (SC) titled M/s Paramount Digital Colour Lab & Ors.  Vs. M/s Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. etc.; 2020 (4) CPJ 100 (NC) titled M/s Shiv Narayan Periwal & Sons Vs. Bharat Kumar & Ors. and Revision Petition No.22 of 2018, DOD 18.08.2020 (NC) titled M/s Avon Beej Company Vs. Anoop Singh and  others.  

10.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that the complainant did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 38(2) of CP Act 2019. He further argued that the alleged report has been prepared in gross violation of Seed Rules 1968, which are in consonance with Seed Act. He further argued that the affidavits Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-3, produced by the complainant regarding taking the land on lease are manipulated and procured one, without mentioning the Khewat Number or Rakba number of land in it and those affidavits of lease were got prepared by the complainant after the date of preparation of inspection report.  He further argued that in the inspection report, the said inspecting team had not assessed/mentioned that how much loss has been caused to the complainant. Moreover, there is nowhere mentioned in that inspection report that the said loss has been caused to the complainant due to inferior or sub standard quality of seeds. He further argued that the complainant had purchased three variety of seeds, from OP No.1 and there is every possibility that at the sowing the seeds in the land, all the seeds have been mixed. He further argued that the seed which was sold to the complainant was got certified from the Govt. Seed Testing Laboratory Sirsa, vide Lab Test report which was issued by them, after completion of all sort of procedure. He further argued that the OPs sold the same batch seed in question to numerous farmers through its authorized dealers who have got the yield to their satisfaction regarding quality and quantity. He further argued that these certificate fulfill the requirement of Paddy Genetic and Physical Standards as per Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards fixed by Indian Govt. vide their compilation 2013. He further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint. In order to support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case laws titled Shamsher Singh Vs. M/s Bagri Beej Bhandar and another, Revision Petition No.2597 of 2012, DOD 11.09.2013 (NC); IFFCO  Vs. Sh. Ram SArup, Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014, DOD 26.11.2014 (NC); Naseeb Singh Vs. Naziveedu Seeds Ltd., Appeal No.861 of 2016, DOD 04.08.2017 (State Commission).

11.              There is no dispute that the complainant purchased 10 bags of Paddy seeds No.PB-1401, 1 bag of PR-14 and 3 bags of PB-1718, from OP No.1, vide bill No.931 dated 07.05.2021 amounting to Rs.7500/- Annexure C-4.

12.              The complainant alleged that he sown the said in 10 acres of land, as per instructions of OPs, but after four months, when the crop were rise up, he found that the seeds of Muchal Paddy, given by OP No.1 were of different different quality. Upon which, on 02.09.2021, he moved an application in CM Window Annexure C-6, upon which, on 14.09.2021, a Agriculture Development Officer, HAS-II, Kaithal-1; Block Agriculture Officer (Agri & Farmer Welfare Deptt, Kaithal) and Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer (Agri & Farmer Welfare Deptt, Kaithal) visited his fields and inspected the crop of 10 acres and given report Annexure C-7 and found that 5-7% paddy crops were of different kind, as such, he suffered a total loss of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.15000/- per acre) in 10 acres of crop.

13.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for the OPs has firstly contended that the documents produced by the complainant to prove that he had taken 8 acres of land on lease, are fabricated and forged one, because, the two affidavits Annexure C-2 and C-3, given by Jarnail Singh and Satan Singh regarding giving their land on lease, to the complainant, are undated and unattested one. He further contended that there is no ownership record of these two farmers on the case file, vide which, it can be proved that they are the owner of that land, about which they had given affidavits Annexure C-2 and C-3 about giving on lease to the complainant. From perusal of those affidavits Annexure C-2 and C-3, we found that the above contentions of OPs has force, because, there is no date or stamp of any Notary on these affidavits. Furthermore, there is no ownership proof of said farmers Jarnail Singh and Satan Singh on the case file which they allegedly given on lease to the complainant vide affidavits Annexure C-2 and C-3.

14.              Learned counsel for the OPs has further contended that the complainant had purchased three different types of seeds i.e. 3 bags of PB1401; 1 bag of PR-114 and 3 bags of PB-1718 seed and alleging that OPs had sold mixed seed to him, so, there is every possibility that at the time of transplantation or preparation of nursery, complainant had mixed all the seeds with each other. He further contended that the complainant has not produced any J-Form, on the case file regarding getting the yield come out from the seed in question.

15.              Learned counsel for OPs has contended that the complainant himself produced document Annexure C-5, wherein, the batch number of seed PB-1401 is mentioned as SVHS-KH-20409(i) dated 17.03.2021. However, in that document Annexure C-5, under heading “TRUTHFUL LABEL”, there is mentioned “Genetic Purity (Min.) – 98%”. From perusal of said document Annexure C-5, we found that it is a the label which was pasted on the seed in question and as per specifications about the quality of seed mentioned therein, we found that the total germination of the seed in question i.e. PB-1401 was 98%, out of total 100%.  

16.               Learned counsel for the OPs has further contended that the seed, which was sold to the complainant was got certified from the Govt. Seed Testing Laboratory Sirsa, vide Lab Test report, which was issued by them, after completion of all sort of procedure. He drawn attention of this Commission towards testing report, issued by The State Seed Testing Laboratory, Sirsa as Annexure R-7, wherein, the batch bearing No.SVHS-KH-20429 of PB-1401 is mentioned at Sr. No.30. However, it is pertinent to mention here that it is the same batch number which was mentioned on document Annexure C-5, produced by the complainant himself on the case file. From perusal of that testing report Annexure R-7, we found that at the purity of the seed in question having Batch No.SVHS-KH-20429 is 100% at Serial Number 30. This testing report Annexure R-7 also bears signature and stamp of the said testing lab underneath it. So, from perusal of said lab report Annexure R-7, we found that the seed in question PB-1401 having Batch No.SVHS-KH-20429 was duly tested, by the Government Certified Laboratory, who found its purity 100%.

17.              Learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the inspection team has got conducted the inspection of the fields of the complainant in their absence, without issuing any notice to the OPs, as such, report Annexure C-7 prepared by the inspecting team cannot be believed. In this regard, he placed reliance  upon case law titled “Indian Farmers fertilizers co-operative Vs. Bhup Singh in Revision Petition No.2144 of 2014 decided on  09.04.2015 and the  relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-

“6.     Perusal of inspection report clearly reveals that inspection was made by a team of B.A.O., S.M.S. (PP) and SDAO whereas, as per circular of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 03.01.2002 fields were to be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK. Admittedly, inspection was not carried out after due notice to representative of OP and Scientist was not called and admittedly, not in their presence.  In such circumstances, inspection report made by some officers of Agriculture Department cannot be acted upon and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were not of standard quality, particularly, when these seeds were certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency.  Learned District Forum and learned State Commission wrongly observed that non formation of team as per circular of director of Agriculture was not fault of the complainant.  At the time of inspection, complainant should have asked the inspecting team to intimate OP as well Scientist for carrying out inspection and as inspection has not been done by the duly constituted committee, no reliance can be placed on this inspection report and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the petitioner.

 

18.              So, in the light of aforesaid judgment, it becomes clear that report obtained by the complainant without notice to OPs cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, in report Annexure C-7, the said inspecting team has not mentioned that the seed in question used by the complainant was of inferior quality. In that report, the said inspecting team has nowhere mentioned that how much actual loss has been suffered to the complainant due to 5-7% of different variety of plants. Furthermore, the complainant has not produced copy of J-Form, on the case file, regarding selling of crop, harvested from the seed in question, from which,  it can be gathered that how much yield has been come out, from that seed, or the said yield is less from the average yield or not.

19.              From the pleadings and evidence on the file, it is clear that there was no problem regarding germination of the seeds, rather there may be so many reasons of poor germination, poor yield and poor quality of the crop. Germination as well as quality and quantity of yield depends upon the climatic conditions, nature of soil, proper irrigation and use of manure, fertilizer and pesticides. There was no evidence about loss alleged to be suffered by complainant. Moreover, in view of the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in aforesaid case law, inspection report Annexure C-7 cannot be relied upon. The complainant in this case could not produce any cogent and convincing documentary evidence with regard to the ownership of the 8 acres of land, allegedly taken by him on lease. The complainant did not make any effort for obtaining expert report to the effect that the seed, provided to the complainant were of poor quality and poor quality of the crop was due to sub-standard and poor quality of the seed.

20.              Keeping in mind all the circumstances, findings can be safely given that the complainant failed to prove that it was a case of sub-standard seeds. The complainant also failed to prove that seed, supplied to the complainant were of poor quality and sub-standard or that poor quality and sub-standard of the seeds was the cause of crops. Hence, we found no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The case laws, produced by the complainant do not applicable to the case in hand, being rested on different footings.  

21.              Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, present complaint is, dismissed, it being devoid on merits, leaving the complainant to bear his own costs of litigations. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:09.01.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.