BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 114 of 2020
Date of Institution : 27.02.2020
Date of Decision : 14.08.2024
1. Gurtej Singh son of Shri Lakhbir Singh, resident of village Musahibwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. Hartej Singh son of Shri Lakhbir Singh, resident of village Musahibwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
1. M/s Shree Balaji Grain Traders, Commission Agents, SCF-2A, Addl. Mandi Road, Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Partner.
2. KRBL India Ltd. Corporate Office C-32, 5th & 6th, Sector-62, Noida- 201301 (UP) (India) through its authorized person/ responsible person.
3. M/s Mehta Enterprises, Shop no.11, S-1, Anaj Mandi, Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Partner.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under the provision of Consumer Protection Act
BEFORE: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR……….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Manish Gupta, Advocate for the complainants.
Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Ms. Renu Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present joint complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainants is that complainants are agriculturists by profession and own 31 acres of land situated at village Musahibwala and cultivating 11 acres of land on lease and their land is of good quality which gives high yield of two crops i.e. paddy and wheat. That on 03.05.2019 complainant no.1 purchased 11 bags of 10 kg. each of PB-6 certified Basmati and 6 bags of PB-1509 of 10 Kg. each from op no.1 vide invoice dated 03.05.2019. The said seed was manufactured by op no.2. That as per instructions of ops, complainant sowed PB-6 quality certified seed. The usual span of the crop of PB-6 is 130-140 days whereas other qualities of the basmati like PB-1509 takes 90 days. It is further averred that in first week of October, 2019 they found that said seed sold to the complainants is misbranded and ops have sold mixed seed instead of PB-6 in which the PB-6 quality was only 20% mixed with other varieties of 80% which resulted into huge loss to the complainants. It is further averred that complainants moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Agriculture Minister & on C.M. Window for inspection of their fields which were referred to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa upon which inspecting team carried out the inspection of the fields of complainants after serving notices to the ops also and submitted report that seed sold by op no.1 pertaining to op no.2 was of mixed quality in which there was a short span varieties of 40% which was of early sown crops and as such complainants have suffered huge loss to the extent of 15 to 20 quintals per acre and due to mixed quality, the rate of crop was also adversely affected to the extent of 25% and in this way they have suffered loss of Rs.35,000/- per acre besides loss of amount spent by them on sowing the crop. The complainants had sown seed in 42 acres of land and as such they have suffered loss of Rs.14,70,000/- on account of unfair trade practice of ops and they have also suffered unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, suppression of material facts, complaint is false and frivolous, estoppal. It is also submitted that answering op is selling packed seeds received from the manufacturer and distributors. The answering op purchased paddy seeds from the distributor duly authorized by the manufacturing company. Thereafter, the seal packed seeds sold to the complainants with the same condition as received from the distributor. The complainants before purchasing the paddy seeds after carefully inspecting, visualizing the seal packed bags belonging to manufacturing company purchased the same with their own satisfaction. The paddy seeds found to be best yield giving seeds approved from ICAR Karnal and also approved by Uttar Pardesh State Seed Certificate Agency Merut and that there is no mention about the detail and description of the agricultural land in the DDA report or in the complaint. It is further submitted that variation in the condition of crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seeds, but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation purpose, long drive spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture contents at the sowing time and soil physical condition and complainants have not mentioned about these things whereas it is mandatory for complainants to adopt all the agriculture operations even provided on the leaflet/ broacher of the seeds. The complainants themselves are responsible for adopting wrong cultivation practice which is not recommended by op’s company and they have failed to follow the guidelines as provided in the literature/ broacher and complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, while reiterating the pleas of preliminary objections it is submitted that within the same area number of farmers have purchased and sown the same paddy seeds and succeeded in maximum results. The farmers of the area have also sown their affidavit in this regard by showing and proving the best branded quality of the seeds being manufactured by company. The answering op has sold best quality paddy seeds. The complainant Gurtej Singh sown paddy crop in 62 kanals 15 marlas of land and received yield of Rs.1,99,921/- and complainant Hardev Singh sown paddy crop in 199 kanals of land and received yield of Rs.6,34,014/- and other farmers have also received good yield. It is also submitted that it is complainants who are responsible for mixing the low quality paddy seeds with the approved, certified and high quality seeds belonging to op no.2. So, the complainants are negligent on their part and they cannot get advantage of their own wrongs. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. Op no.2 manufacturer of the seed also filed written statement on the similar lines as that of op no.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. On being impleaded and on notice op no.3 also appeared and filed written statement and resisted the complaint on almost similar lines as of op no.1. It is also submitted that answering op is a proprietor of firm M/s Mehta Enterprises, Rania and selling packed seeds received from the manufacturer. The answering op received a bill invoice dated 01.05.2019 issued by op no.2 being a manufacturer of said seeds and received all the bags with HSN code and with batch number and sold the same to the retailers and other customers and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. The complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of complainant Gurtej Singh as Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. letter of Deputy Agriculture Director with report Ex.C1, bill Ex.C2 and jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C3.
7. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Himalaya Koul, authorized signatory Ex.RW1/A, certificates of seeds, leaflet and bill etc. Ex.R1 to Ex.R9. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Satish Mehta as Ex. RW3/A, affidavit of Sh. Puneet Gupta as Ex. RW3/B.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
9. From the bill Ex.C2, it is evident that on 03.05.2019 complainant Hartej Singh purchased six bags of 10 kgs. each paddy seed quality PB-1509 and 11 bags of 10 Kgs. each paddy seed quality PB-6 from op no.1 for total amount of Rs.16,150/-. The complainants have alleged that due to supply of mixed quality of seeds, they have suffered loss of crops and as such they have suffered huge financial loss. According to the complainants they had sown seed in 42 acres of land and the inspection report conducted by three officers of Agriculture department also mentions that they inspected 42 acres of the land of complainants in which there were two types of mixed quality of plants of paddy, the plants of main quality i.e. PB-6 were about 35 to 40 % and there were about 55-60% plants of other quality. They have further reported that due to mix quality of seed in main quality of PB-6 and due to hot weather, the Baliyan were empties and due to this reason, there was possibility of loss of yield of 35 to 40 mound per acre and the reason of loss is due to supply of mixed quality of seed in main quality of PB-6. However, it appears that as complainants intimated the Agriculture department that they had sown paddy crop in 42 acres of land, the team of agriculture department as it is mentioned in their report that complainants had sown paddy crop in 42 acres of land without verifying the fact that as to whether they had sown paddy crop in total 42 acres of land or in less land. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops have drawn our attention towards Naksha Jhad Paidawar (TableB) in which Hadbast No.163 of the land of complainants which is also mentioned in jamabandi Ex.C3 is mentioned and it is clear from said document that during Kharif, 2019 season complainant no.1 Gurtej Singh had sown paddy crop in 62 kanals 15 marlas of land and had received yield of the amount of Rs.1,99,921/- and complainant no.2 Hartej Singh had sown paddy crop in 199 kanals of land and had received yield of the amount of Rs.6,34,014/-. So, it is clearly proved on record that report prepared by officers of the agriculture department on the basis of which the whole case of complainants depends is wrong and defective because they had mentioned that they inspected 42 acres of land in which complainants had sown paddy crop whereas according to Naskha Jhad Paidawar prepared by Revenue Department it is evident that complainants had sown paddy crop in total land measuring 261 kanals 15 marlas and they sold the same for total amount of Rs.8,33,935/- and as such they sold the paddy crop for an amount of Rs.8,33,935/- sown in 261 kanals 15 marlas of land, therefore, it cannot be said that yield was less or that complainants have suffered any loss. Since no killa numbers or square numbers etc. i.e. identity of the land of complainants is mentioned in the inspection report, therefore, possibility that report was prepared without visiting the spot cannot be ruled out because the inspecting team mentioned about their visit in 42 acres of land of complainants without verifying the fact that whether complainants sown paddy crop in whole of the land or in part of the land and as such no importance can be given to the inspection report which itself is defective. In this regard reliance is placed on the observation of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in a case titled as Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 in which it was clearly observed that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officers had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant. Further, it cannot be said that any notice was served upon ops before inspection of the fields of complainants and as such inspection of fields of complainants was done behind their back and as such there is violation of the letter dated 03.01.2002 of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula written to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the Haryana State. Further more, the complainants have also not placed on file any record to prove the fact that in how many acres of land paddy crop in previous year was sown and what was the yield of previous year and therefore, in absence of the same no loss of paddy crop of Kharif, 2019 can be ascertained. Further more, the allegation made by complainants is based only on visual inspection and conjecture and there is no material on record to show that sample of seeds/ crops were ever sent to any laboratory for any scientific testing. So, the complainants have failed to prove their case through any cogent and convincing evidence.
10. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 14.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
