Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1078/2012

Yogesh Sharma S/o Bhupinnder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Shivam Trading Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Y.C.Tyagi

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                       Complaint No. .1078 of 2012.

                                                                                       Date of Institution: .05.10.2012  

                                                                                       Date of Decision: 20.09.2016..

Yogesh aged about 26 years son of Sh. Bhupinder Singh @ Joginder Singh, resident of VPO- Jathlana, Tehsil Jagadhri, and District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                   ...Complainant

                                                  Versus

1. M/s Shivam Trading Co. Radaur Road, Jathlana through its Proprietor Shri Karamjeet having his shop at Radaur Road, VPO- Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
2. Kesar Seeds ( A Division of Kesar Enterprises Ltd. ), having its Registered Office at Oriental House # 7, Jamshed Ji Tata Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400 020 through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                                                                                …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Y.C.Tyagi, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. S.S.Saini, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

              Respondent No.2 already ex-parte.  

 

ORDER   (ASHOK KUMAR GARG President)

 

1.                     Complainant Yogesh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of crop loss/damages, due to mixing of seeds and mental agony as well as physical harassment suffered by him.

2.                     Brief facts as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased the seed of hybrid Paddy Kesar 505, having lot no. KEL-PKH012 and 2355 plus having Lot No. 3275 from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 for an amount of Rs. 1840/- vide Bill No. 687 dated 24.05.2012 (Annexure C-2).  Thereafter the complainant sowed the abovesaid paddy seed and planted in 2 acres of Agriculture land and waited for a sufficient time. When the paddy crop was on the creational /productive stage, then it was very surprising to the complainant that the paddy crop of the complainant was not producing equalant and there was a lot of difference in the productivity of the whole paddy plants.  Thereafter, the complainant contacted with OpNo.1 and made complaint about the non-productivity of the paddy crop, and then the Op No.1 asked to complainant to wait sufficient time and not to worry about the yield. Thereafter, the OP No.1 postpone the matter with one pretext or the other and finally finding no other alternative the complainant moved an application to the Agriculture Officer who constituted an inspection team having three competent officers i.e. Agriculture Officer, Sub Division Jagadhri, Inspector Quality Control, Yamuna Nagar and Agriculture Development Officer, Jathalan. Thereafter, these  three agriculture officer visited the fields of the complainant on 28.09.2012 and found that there is mixing of several varieties in the crop and due to which 30-35% crop has ripen and made a report (Annexure C-3) that there was mixture of 30-35%  of another paddy seeds.  In this way the complainant has to suffer a loss to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of produce of paddy crop. As such, OPs sold the sub -standard and mixture paddy seeds to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part.  Hence this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement but OP No.2 failed to appear despite service through registered post, hence it was proceed ex-parte vide order dated 29.11.2012.

4                      OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as  complaint is not maintainable; Complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties as the op no. 1 has purchases the seed in question from M/s Maharaja Pesticides & Seed Store (copy of bill Annexure R.1/1) which has not been imp leaded in this complaint, complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is not the consumer as per definition given in the Consumer Protection Act; the mandatory procedure as laid down under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act for such complaints has not been followed; the present complaint has been filed just to black mail the OP No.1 and to extract money from the OP No.1; the complainant has not placed any revenue record showing that he had actually sown the paddy crop in his fields; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been admitted to the extent that the OP No.1 is doing the shop of pesticides and seeds in the village of the complainant and complainant in the month of May 2012 purchased one Kg. hybrid Kesar 505 paddy seed bearing Lot no. Kel-PKH-012 @ Rs. 240/- per Kg. and other paddy seed as mentioned in the Annexure C-2 amounting to Rs. 1840/-. The complainant never approached to Op No.1 so question of postponing the matter on one pretext or the other does not arise at all. No notice of inspection has ever been issued to the OP. If there is any such report, the same is null and void and is without any notice to the OP. The complainant has purchased one (1) Kg. Kesar 505 paddy seed but it has wrongly mentioned in the report that 6 Kgs of Kesar 505 seed was purchased by the complainant and was sown by the complainant in his field. The report submitted by the officer of the Deputy Director is false and manipulated one only to grab the compensation amount. There is no deficiency or negligence service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and document such as Photo copy of ration card as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill No. 67 dated 24.05.2012 of M/s Shivam Trading Co. as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of Inspection Report of Agriculture Department as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 has tendered into evidence documents such as Photo copy of bill dated 15.05.2012 of Maharaja Pesticides & Seed Store as Annexure R.1/1, Photo copy of bills of M/s Shivam Trading Co. as Annexure R.1/2 to R.1/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.    

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as OP No.1 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased the seed of hybrid Paddy Kesar 505, having lot No. KEL-PKH012 and 2355 plus having Lot No. 3275 from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 for an amount of Rs. 1840/- vide Bill No. 6-7 dated 24.05.2012 (Annexure C-2).  Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the seed supplied by the OP No.1 was having mixing of other varieties and in this regard the complainant moved an application to the Agriculture Officer, Yamuna Nagar for inspection of the said paddy crop. The three officers of the Agriculture Department visited the field of complainant and submitted their report (Annexure C-3) mentioning therein that 30-35% balia has ripened and remaining paddy crop is ready to ripe. Thus, approximately 30-35% of other varieties were found mixed in the paddy crop. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that due to the supplying of substandard and mixed seed, the complainant has suffered a monetary loss and prayed for compensation and referred the case law titled as  Shri Ram Bioseed Genetics India Limited & Another V/s V.Bikshapathi & others, 2010(3) CLT page 231 and Green Gold Seeds V/s Chilukuri Subba Reddy & Others 2011 (3) CLT page 665( AP) and  M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. V/s. Madhusudhan Reddy and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) page 838 (SC), wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 13(1) ( C) and 12- Seed purchased by Farmers from Seed Corporation- Seed found to be defective- Farmer unable to produce defective sample before Consumer Forum as entire seed was sown and no sample was retained- Complaint could not be rejected- To prove defect farmers could not be expected to keeping a sample before sowing-Defective sample otherwise proved by Horticulture and Agriculturist experts.  

9.                     Learned counsel for the OP No.1 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 OP No.1 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 OP No.1 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.

10.                   The contention of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality and that was also having mixture of seed of different varieties and to prove his contention he placed the report of Agriculture Department Annexure C-3.

11.                   Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Annexure C-3 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Annexure C-3), it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by three agriculture officers, one Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri,  Quality Control Inspector, Yamuna Nagar and Agriculture Development Officer, Jathlana 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 Sarpanch, Panch or Lamberdar or any neighborer of field/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.

12.                   Further 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.

13.                   Apart from above noted facts, complainant has also failed to file any revenue record i.e. Fard Jamabandi, 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 criteria for assessing the percentage of 30-35% of mixing as mentioned in the report. In the absence of method adopted by the said team, it cannot be said that the criteria adopted by the said committee is correct. Moreover, from the perusal of Annexure C-2, it is clear that the complainant has purchased two varieties of paddy seed from the OP No.1 and it cannot  ruled out that some mixing may be occurred before sowing the same in the field. The said committee simply mentioned that 30-35% paddy has ripen and remaining paddy is ready to ripe, it does not mean that there was loss of 30-35%. 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-3 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 and that the same was having mixture of the different variety.    

14.                   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. 20.09.2016.                      

                                                                              ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

                                                                              (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                               MEMBER