Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1037/2012

Jai Karan Sharma S/o Shiv Dayal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sharma Pesticides And seed Store - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeev Bharadwaj

12 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1037 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 26.09.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 12.05.2016.

Jai Karan Sharma son of Sh. Shiv Dayal resident of village Lal Chhappar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s Sharma Pesticides & Seed Store, Gumthala Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor.
2. NUZIVEEDU Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Sy. No. 69, Gundlapouchampali (Village) Medchal      ( Mandal), R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh 0501401 through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                   ...Respondents.  

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Rajeev Bhardwaj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

              Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1. 

              Sh. V.P.Chaudhary, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Jai Karan has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of loss of yield to the complainant suffered due to spurious and bad quality of seeds supplied by the OPs, and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

 2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased 12 packet of Maize seeds make NMH 589 Suverna of having weight 5 Kg. per bag at the rate of Rs. 85/- per bag vide bill No.101 dated 04.05.2012 for Rs. 5100/- ( Annexure C-1).  The complainant sown the maize seeds following the instructions advised by the OP No.1 in his six (6) acres of land but it was shocking for the complainant when he noticed on germination of seeds that the Ops had sold spurious and inferior quality of maize seeds to him. The complainant immediately complained to OP No.1 who assured that the matter shall be reported to manufacturer of the said seeds and he shall be compensated in this regard but there was no response from any of the OPs. Ultimately,  the complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar regarding sale of sub-standard and inferior maize seeds by the OPs. On the said application, the inspection team consisting of Quality Control Inspector, Yamuna Nagar and Agriculture Development Officer Jathlana has inspected the spot on 18.08.2012 and report (Annexure C-2) about the fact that on inspection it was found that the that number of maize plants were less and fruits on plants were below in normal and size of fruit was also small due to which the complainant has suffered great financial loss. As such, the OPs sold the substandard and spurious maize seeds to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1& 2 appeared and filed its written statement separately.  OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is legally not maintainable in the present form. The OP No.1 sold the sealed packet of seed to complainant on his demand by purchasing from the distributor Lucky Beej Bhandar, Radaur Road, Ladwa, who is also necessary party to be impleaded in the present complaint. Copy of bill regarding the purchase from Lucky Beej Bhandar Ladwa is Annexure R-1.  As such, the present complaint is also bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, complainant is legally estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and on merit it has been mentioned that the complainant has not placed any record alongwith the complaint in respect of the land situated in village Lal Chhappar in which the seed was allegedly sown. The OP No.1 has never issued any instructions as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has not knowingly and intentionally placed the record of the land situated at village Lal Chhappar, in which the said seed was sown. The reason is that there are many villagers nearby village Lal Chhappar, from where the river Yamuna flow and usually the crop of such kind could not grow properly due to the sand /low quality of the soil. The complainant is blowing hot and cold somewhere stated the less germination of the seed in his complaint and somewhere about the proper fruit in the crop. The farmer is shifting the responsibility of his shoulders upon the OP No.1 because for proper germination as well as for proper growth of the crops there are so many circumstances responsible just as the condition of the soil, fertility of the land, method of sowing, watering, fertilizers, nourishment etc. Moreover, no notice of alleged inspection was ever received by the OP No.1. It has been further mentioned that the alleged report is not legally tenable in the eyes of law because the alleged team was not properly constituted as per law and norms laid down/instructions of Director of Agriculture. The report has been made on the saying of the complainant/farmer and acted beyond their jurisdiction and powers. It has been further mentioned that no record of the alleged field in which the crop of Maize was sown has been mentioned in the report and not supported with any document pertaining to the village Lal Chhappar which was allegedly inspected by them. So, the alleged report is not legally tenable in any form. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement stated that the Op No.2 is not responsible and liable for the quality of the seeds in question as the Op No.2 did not supply the same to the complainant. The OP No.2 always supplied the seeds of best quality if purchased by him and denied all the averments made in the complaint. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.                            

5.                     To prove the case,  counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of Bill No. 101 dated 04.05.2012 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of inspection report as Annexure C-2,  Application made to Naib Tehsildar for inspection of field as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajeev Sharma Prop. Of M/s Sharma Pesticides as Annexure RW1/A and document such as Photo copy of bill No. 4706 dated 02.05.2012 of Lucky Beej Bhandar as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.  

7.                     Counsel for Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sushil Kumar A.M./ Managing Officer, Muziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure RW2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased 12 packets of Maize Seeds NMH 589 Suverna of 5 Kg. per packet at the rate of 85/- per bag vide Bill No. 101 dated 04.05.2012 for Rs. 5100/- from OP No.1(Annexure C-1)  (manufactured by OP No.2).  Learned counsel the complainant further argued that two (2) officers of the Agriculture Department visited the fields of complainant and submitted their report (Annexure C-2) mentioning therein that complainant had sown hybrid maize N.M.H. 589 in six (6) acres land on inspection it was found that number of maize plants was less and fruits on these plants were below normal and size of fruit was also small due to which the complainant has suffered great financial loss.  Complainant further alleged in his complaint that due to the supplying of substandard seed, the complainant has suffered a monetary loss and prayed for compensation.  

10.                   Learned counsel for the OPs argued that the report is nothing but it is a waste paper as no notice was ever given either to the manufacturer or to the dealer before inspecting the field of the complainant. There is also a mandatory provision under section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provisions. Learned counsel for the OPs further urged that as per report of the agriculture department, it is clear that before spot inspection of the field of complainant, no demarcation was conducted by the official of Revenue Department as no Khasra Number have been mentioned in the report by the inspecting team. Learned counsel for the OPs further urged that without demarcation of field, it cannot be stated as to which field the inspection report pertains. So, it is quite clear that the inspecting team has tried to give undue benefits to the complainant in their report and referred the case laws titled as Anand Singh Vs. Khurana Seed Store and another, 2007(1) CPC page 95 Haryana State Commission, Panchkula, Narender Kumar Versus M/s Arora Trading Company and others, 2007(2) CLT page 683 Haryana State Commission, Panchkula.

11.                   It is not disputed that complainant had purchased 12 packets of 5 Kgs of Maize seed NMH 589 (Manufactured by OP No. 2), for an amount of Rs. 5100/- from the OP No.1 vide Bill No. 101 dated 04.05.2012 (Annexure C-1).   

12.                   The contention of the complainant is that the maize seed in question was of inferior quality and number of maize plants was less and fruits on these plants were below normal and size of fruit was also small due to which the complainant has suffered great financial loss and to prove his contention he placed the report of Agriculture Department Annexure C-2.

13.                   Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Annexure C-2 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Annexure C-2), it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by two (2) Agriculture Officers, one Quality Control Inspector, Yamuna Nagar and second Agriculture Development Officer, Jathalana  whereas as per guidelines/instructions issued by Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department Panchkula, vide memo No. 52-70 dated 3.1.2002 TA/SS, for spot inspection there should be three officers out of this two officers from Agriculture Department and one from Krishi Vigyan Kender KGK/HAU and one member of the concerned seed agency but in this case neither any scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kender nor any representative from concerned seed company has been associated at the time of inspection of the field. Even no respectable person like Sarpacnh, Panch or Lumberdar or any neighborer of land has been joined by the inspecting team at the time of inspection of the field. Besides it, the said report is also not authenticate because the alleged inspection has been made by the officials of the Agriculture Department without getting the land identified from any official of the revenue department prior to spot inspection as no Killa Number or Khasra number has been mentioned in the report and as such it cannot be said with certainty as to which field the inspection report in question pertains. The same view has been held in case titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, IV (2013) CPJ page 186 National Commission, it has been held that Agriculture-Defective Seed-Growth of crop not satisfactory-Loss suffered-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed the complaint- State Commission accepted appeal and dismissed the complaint- Hence revision- When there is complaint by the farmers regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kender- Said inspection had not been followed by the Agriculture Department while giving their report- Factum of the complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or other evidence- No illegality or irregularity in impugned order. Revision dismissed.

14.                   There is a mandatory provision under section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provision nor moved any application to the concerned authority i.e. Agriculture Department or this Forum to get the sample from the OPs and send for analysis.  Further, no any notice has been served upon the OPs prior to inspection of the field and thus the report in question prepared at the back of the OPs is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Without any expert evidence on the record as provided in section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act it cannot be said that seed sold to the complainants were adulterated and were of inferior quality. Reliance on this point can be taken from the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies 2007 (2) CLT page 683 and Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others 2013 Volume 2 page 616 National Commission wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that petitioner had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under provision of section 13(1)         ( C ) of the Consumer Protection Act  1986- He had also not moved an application before the concerned authority for getting seed of the same batch, number, tested from any laboratory- report of agriculture department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection- Inferior quality of seed not proved. The observations mentioned in the case laws titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies & Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others (supra) are fully applicable in the present case.

15.                   Apart from above noted facts, complainant has also failed to file any revenue record i.e. Khasra Girdawari showing his ownership and cultivation of land or file any documentary evidence to prove that he has cultivated any land after taking from any other person on lease or any other way. Furthermore, inspection team has totally failed to explain the loss in the report. The said committee simply mentioned that number of maize plants was less and fruits on these plants were below normal and size of fruit was also small due to which the complainant has suffered great financial loss. The complainant has totally failed to prove any loss by cogent evidence. So, after going through the above noted discussion and law we are of the considered view that the report Annexure C-2 has no value in the eyes of law and there is no other evidence on the file to prove that seed in question was of inferior quality.     

16.                   Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 12.05.2016.          

 

                                                                               (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                               (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                MEMBER