BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                                               

Balbir Singh S/o Sh.Gurnam Singh, R/o Nagla Nanku, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala (Haryana).

                                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Shiva Beej Bhandar, Saha Chowk (Opp. Petrol Pump) Saha, Distt. Ambala through its Proprietor.
2. Synergene Crop Innovation, Regd. Off: MIG-352/1, Flat 203, Sri Krishna Enclave, Balajinagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072 (AP) through its authorized signatory.

                                                                ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

BEFORE:             SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

For the Parties:     Mr.Bhajan Singh Behgal, Adv., for the complainant.

              Op Nos.1 and 2 already ex-parte.

ORDER

(D.N.Arora, President)

1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased 3 bags of 2 kg each containing Sunflower HYB Unnat Lot No.SFIND1612042 on 15.02.2017 from Op No.1 on the assurance of OP No.1 that the seed was of good quality and its high yield more than 10 quintal per acre. As per specialization/direction of the Ops, the complainant had shown the seed of sunflower in his 3½ acre agriculture land. The complainant spent about Rs.15,000/- per acre in preparing the field/fertilizer, irrigation and pesticides etc. but the seed in the flower of sunflower was not properly developed due to defective seeds. The complainant gave an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Ambala on 01.06.2017 for investigation of the fields. The official of Agriculture Department investigated the field of the complainant and made a complaint that he has suffered loss of 40% crop of the same. The complainant also issued legal notice dated 13.07.2017 but to no avail. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Op No.1 through registered post but none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.1. It is deemed to be served. The OP No.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.10.2017.
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.2 through registered post or through publication but none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.2. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.05.2018.
4. The complainant tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, there are two points involved in this case:-

1.       Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs or not?

2.       If deficiency in service on the part of Ops is proved then to what extent, the complainant is entitled for compensation?

The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased 3 bags of 2 Kg each seeds of sunflower HYB UNNAT Lot No.SFIND1612042 on 15.02.2017 after paying the amount of Rs.3075/- vide bill No.685 dated 15.02.2017 from OP No.1 (Annexure C-3) and same was sown in 3½ acres of his agriculture land. The complainant to prove the factum that whether he has sown the seeds in 3½ acre, he has filed his sworn affidavit on record as Annexure C-A and the complainant also placed on record a copy of application for inspection of the crop of sunflower sent to the Agriculture, Deputy Director, Ambala in which he mentioned that he has sown the crop of the sunflower in 3 ½ acre also placed on record copy of jamabandi name of the complainant is also mentioned in the abvoesaid document, so it is clear that the seeds were sown by the complainant in 3½ acres land. We have gone through the report of Agriculture Department which is as under:-

“1.     desVh ;g gS fd mDr fdlku us lwjteq[kh dk cht fdLe HYB UNNAT LOT NO-SFIN1612042 tks fds Synergene Crop Innovations dEiuh dk f’kok cht Hk.Mkj lkgk ftyk vEckyk ls [kjhnk x;k1

2       desVh us tkap djus ij ik;k  fd lwjteq[kh ds Qwy ds chp esa yxHkx 40 izfr’kr txg esa nkusa ugha cus  ftlls fdlku dk yxHkx 40 izfr’kr ds uqdlku gksus dh lEHkkouk gS1

3. ekSds ij mDr Vhe us Mhyj  o dEiuh  okys  dks lwpuk nh ysfdu og mifLFkr ugha gq,1”  

In the present case, the inspection has been done by the Officers of the Department of Agriculture of the State Government who are supposed to be knowledgeable person and expert in the field of agriculture production. At the block level and the sub-block level, departmental officers are posted to see the grievances of the rural people pertaining to that particular department and they are supposed to have basic knowledge of the concerned departmental subjects. As the inspection of crop cannot be made again associating the petitioner and the seed company the report of the officer of the Agriculture becomes an important piece of evidence being the report of an expert. As such, both the Ops are responsible for selling poor quality seeds of the sunflower for which 40% crop has not been developed in the shape of the crop seeds whereby he has suffered huge loss. We have gone through judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled M/s National Seeds Corporation ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. 2012 RCR Civil Page No.838 “wherein it is held that Section 13-Procedure for trial of complaint- complainant by farmer/growers of seeds supplied by appellants resulting in less field –sample seeds not available with complainants as all seeds purchased were sown-Appellant also not providing sample of seeds sold for analysis-Consumer Forum appointing agriculture experts to ascertain status and cause of failure of crop-Compensation awarded to complainants on basis of report of expert-Procedure adopted by Forum cannot be said to be contrary to Section 13(1) (C)-Order of Forum not liable to be set aside as specious ground that procedure prescribed under Section 13 (1) © had not been followed and the Hon’ble National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Circuit Bench at Pune, Maharashtra) in case titled Prathan Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Amir & Anr. 2008 (iv) CPJ Pg. 119-120 (NC) wherein held that “Section 2(1)(f), 14(I)(d)- Agriculture –Seeds defective-Inspection carried out by Inquiry- Committee- Vast Variance in characteristics of plaints found – complaint allowed by Forum compensation granted - order upheld in appeal-Hence revision- Procedure prescribed under Seeds Act followed –Necessary aside on contention that seeds not sent for testing- Orders of lower for a upheld”. The Hon’ble National Commissioner has recently passed order in case title Shri Ram Bioseed Genetics India Ltd. & anr Vs. Badri Prasad & ors Vol III (2017) CPJ 225 wherein held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1), 2(1) ®, 14(i) (d), 21(b)- Agriculture - Defective Seeds – Loss of Crop - Deficiency in Service – Unfair trade practice – District Forum allowed complaint – State Commission partly allowed appeal – contention, when crop was 2-3 feet high, there was no occasion to send seeds for testing in laboratory as seeds were not available at that time with farmer – Inspecting Officer of State Agriculture Department has given a categorical finding that seeds were defective – As inspection of crop cannot be made again associating petitioner and seed company, report of Officer of Agriculture becomes an important piece of evidence being report of an expert- Inspecting Officer has clearly found out that crop had been damaged due to seed – born infestation as seeds were defective- Deficiency proved- Compensation awarded. The above said judgments M/s National Seeds Corporation ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. and Shri Ram Bioseed Genetics India Ltd. & anr Vs. Badri Prasad & ors Vol III (2017) CPJ 225  as well as Prathan Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Amir & Anr. are fully squarely covered the case of the complainant. As such both the opposite parties are responsible for selling the poor quality sunflower seeds to the complainant. Hence, we conclude that OP NO.1 had sold the defective seeds to the complainant which was manufactured by OP No.2. 

7.        Now coming to the point of compensation, the complainant has claimed lumsum amount as a damages amounting Rs.2,00,000 lakh. As per report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-5) reveals that “40% crop has not been developed in the shape of the crop seeds”. In view of the above report, there has been loss of 40% yield of the complainant. However, taking the average crop in the area of Ambala as per data Districtwise Area, Production and Average yield of Sunflower for the year  2017-18 issued by Agriculture Department has mentioned that the yield of the sunflower in the area of Ambala the farmers of the area must have taken at least 6 quintal 70 kilogram sunflower in one acre and value of which may not less than Rs.3,950/- per quintal as per prevailing rate of the Govt. in the year of 2017 as per letter dated 31.05.2017 issued by District Manager, Hafed, Ambala/Panchkula, Kurukshetra, Yamunanagar in which GOI has fixed the support price of Rs.3,950/- per quintal for the FAQ sunflower of seed for the Marketing Season 2017-18 of sunflower crop of such quality. As such, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.10,586/- per acre, and thus value of 3½ acres comes to Rs.37,051/-. As such we hold that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation to the complainant alongwith the cost as assessed Rs.3,000/-.

7.           In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and OPs are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of order:-

1. The OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.37,051/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. If compliance of the order is made by the Op No.1 then Op No.1 may recover the said amount from Op No.2 as manufacturing defect in the seeds solely attributed to OP No.2.
2. Also to pay Rs.3000/- as cost assessed above.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :13.06.2018                          (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                         President

          (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                          Member