Haryana

Karnal

CC/762/2019

Krishan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shiv Shankar Seeds Store - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Sharma

19 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 762 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.14.11.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:19.12.2022

 

Krishan Lal aged about 46 years son of Shri Rishal Singh, resident of village Sirsal, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal. Aadhar no.3525 3572 0520.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     M/s Shiv Shanker Seed Store, shop at main Road Nissing, District Karnal authorized dealer of seeds, through its partner/proprietor.

 

2.     Chaudhary Exports, village Sehikhpura Bangar, Post Office Sikri, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. Through its proprietor/partner.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Kuldeep Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Mohit Sachdeva, counsel for OP no.1.

Shri P.S.Bhati, counsel for OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is having 17 acres agriculture land i.e. 14½ acre agriculture land in village Tharta, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal ad 2½ acre land in village Sirsal, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal. Complainant is the owner of only 4 kanals agriculture land and remaining 16½ acres agriculture land has been taken by the complainant on lease from others for the lease amount of per acre is Rs.55,000/-.  On 29.05.2019, complainant purchased 7 bags of paddy seeds (10 kg per bag of marka CSR 30 (Basmati) from OP no.1 for a sum of Rs.6650/-, vide cash memo no.716 dated 29.05.2019. OP no.2 is the manufacturer of the said seeds. Complainant had prepared nursery of the said paddy seed in his field and thereafter planted the said paddy seeds CSR-30 over 14½ acres agriculture land in village Throta, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal and also sown paddy crop over 2½ acre agriculture land situated at village Sirsal, Tehsil Pundri, District Karnal but it is strange that OPs had sold the said paddy seed CSR-30 after mixing some other paddy seed and due to this reason complainant had caused huge financial loss. After seeing the said defect in the paddy crop, complainant made a written complaint to the Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Karnal on 17.09.2019 and on that application of complainant the concerned department formulated a team on 19.09.2019 and inspected the fields of complainant with representative of OP no.1 on 20.09.2019 and prepared their report vide which there are 6% of mixing of other seed in the seed of CSR-30. From the abovesaid report, it is clearly proved that the complainant suffered a huge financial loss of Rs.6,80,000/- exactly i.e. Rs.40,000/- per acre, since the paddy seed, which was purchased by the complainant from the OP, it was totally mixed by another low quality seeds. Thereafter, complainant visited the OP no.1 and requested to make the payment of losses caused by OPs by mixing other kind of seed but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.10.2019 to the OP no.1 through his counsel but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 is not the manufacturer of the said seeds and only sells the sealed bags of the seed manufactured by the OP no.2. The said bags of CSR-30 were purchased by the OP no.1 from M/s Ram Trading Company, situated opposite Narwania Building, Super Market, Kaithal vide invoice no.4976 dated 24.05.2019. The said M/s Ram Trading company is the authorized distributor of the OP no.2. It is further pleaded that it is specifically written in the invoice issued by OP  to the complainant that “Hum badhiya quality k beej bechte hain. Par fasal k bare me hamari kisi prakar ki jimmewari nahi hogi” and complainant accepted the same and has marked his signatures on the said invoice issued by the OP no.1. It is further pleaded that there are various technicalities for sowing the seed CSR-30. Infact, a quantity of 5 kg is necessarily required for sowing in one acre land. Moreover, at the time of sowing the seed in the nursery, it shows clearly that the complainant being satisfied with the production of the said nursery, has sown the seeds in his land. It is further pleaded that after the seeds are sown by the complainant, it is the duty of the complainant to take care of the said crop and OP no.1 does not have to do anything with the same. The alleged report of the Agriculture Department is a procured one by the complainant in connivance with the Agriculture Department and thus cannot be relied upon. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant as well as Deputy Director Agriculture never intimated the OP for inspection of the alleged field of the complainant. However, as per letter dated 03.01.2002 issued by Director, Agriculture Haryana that field of the complainant/farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK/HAU but in the present case no representative of the seed agency nor any scientist was called for inspection purposes. So, the alleged report of agriculture is procured one. However, OP no.2 sold the seed CSR-30 to many other farmers of the area and there is no complaint made by even a single person in this regard. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of complaint dated 16.09.2019 Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 29.05.2019 Ex.C2, copy of legal notice dated 14.10.2019 Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4, copy of inspection report dated 09.10.2019 Ex.C5, survey report dated 09.10.2019 Ex.C6, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 10.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             In additional evidence, learned counsel for complainant has tendered Forms J dated 18.11.2019, 18.11.2019, 17.11.2019, 18.11.2019, 30.11.2019, 02.12.2019, 05.12.2019 and closed the additional evidence on 27.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Satish Kumar Proprietor Ex.OP1/A, copy of bill issued by M/s Ram Trading Company Ex.OP1, copy of bill/invoice issued by the OP no.1 Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 17.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Prabhu Dayal partner of M/s Chaudhary Export Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence on 17.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased 10kg paddy seeds of Marka CSR-30 (Basmati) and paid Rs.6650/- to the OP no.1 and complainant sowing the said seed in his land. When the said seed was in growing stage, then the complainant noticed that there was mixing of some other paddy seeds and he filed complaint before Deputy Director Agriculture Officer, Karnal for inspection of the crop.  The authorities concerned constituted a committee and inspection committee visited the site on 19.09.2019 and prepared the inspection report. In the report the inspection committee has mentioned that there were 6% of mixing of other seed  in the seed of CSR-30 and due to which complainant suffered a huge financial loss and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

11.           Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently that the OP no.1 is not the manufacturer of the said seeds and only sells the sealed bags of the seed manufactured by the OP no. He further argued t hat there are various technicalities for sowing the seed CSR-30. He further argued that the report of the Agriculture Department is a procured one by the complainant in connivance with the Agriculture Department and thus cannot be relied upon and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           Learned counsel for OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that inspection report dated 19.09.2019 prepared behind the back of representative of the OP. The Government Officers are bound to inform the concerned manufacturer and the agent for inspecting the so called land of the complainant. He further argued that the alleged report of agriculture is procured one. OP no.2 sold the seed CSR-30 to many other farmers of the area and there is no complaint made by even a single person in this regard. He further argued that the defect in the seeds with regard to the genetic purity can only be decided on sending the alleged seed to the laboratory for testing the same for the percentage of purity as such, the complaint cannot be maintainable for deciding the genetic purity of the seed, in absence of report from the laboratory, nobody had come to the correct conclusion in respect of defect in the seed. Learned counsel for the OPs relied upon the authorities in case titled as Somnath Kashinath Ghodse Versus Vilas Gangaram Jattap and another MANU/QT/0026/2009; Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babu Ram MANU/CF/0028/2005 and American Hybrid Seeds and Anr. Versus Vijay Kumar Shankarrao and Anr. MANU/CF/0307/2005 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

13.           We have considered duly the rival contentions of the parties.

14.                  It is evident from the cash memo Ex.C2 dated 29.05.2019 the complainant purchased 10Kgs seeds of CSR-30 from the OP no.1 and paid amounting to Rs.6650/-. Complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, constituted a committee and said committee inspected the field of the complainant on 19.09.2019 and prepared its report Ex.C6. In the said report, it is mentioned that on seeing the crop,    it was found that the number of plants other than main crop plants is about 6 percent.

15.           The OP has taken a plea that the agriculture report prepared by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, in the absence of representative of the OPs, is not admissible in the eyes of law.  In this regard, we are fortified with the observations in case titled as Somnath Kashinath’s case (supra) wherein it is held that there no representative of seed producing company and representative of dealer. So, the inspection carried out on the field of the complainant was defective one. As per Government Resolution all committee members were not available and manufacturing company and dealer were not representing. Hence, in view of the observation of the abovesaid judgment, agriculture report produced by the complainant Ex.C6 regarding the defective seed which prepared in the absence of the OPs has no weightage. Moreover, said report is prepared without following the due process, as per the notification of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dated 03.01.2002. Hence, plea taken by the OP is having force.

16.           The next plea taken by the OPs is that there is not even a single complaint regarding the alleged dispute i.e. defected seed except the present complaint. Complainant has also failed to examine any other farmer who had also purchased the same variety seeds from the OPs having any complaint with regard to mixing of seeds.

17.           It is the common practice of farmers to prepare the various types of nurseries of different varieties of seeds in the form of dividing the place of land in small parts like kyaris. Therefore, the possibility of alleged mixing on the hands of complainant and his labourer cannot be ruled out.       

18.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merits in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 19.12.2022

 

                                                                President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member

 

 

Sushma

Stenographer