Haryana

Ambala

CC/88/2012

HARBHAJAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SIGNET CROP SCIENCE INDIA PVT,LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SURENDER SINGH

24 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                      Complaint Case No.:  88 of 2012

          Date of Institution    : 14.03.2012

          Date of Decision    :  24.06.2016

Harbhajan Singh son of Sh. Ghasita Singh R/o village Rajouli, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

                             ……….Complainant

                                                                                  Versus

1.       M/s Signet Crop Science India Pvt. Ltd. MIG-352/1 Flat 203, Shri Krishna Enclave, Balaji Nagar, near Kaukatpally, Hyderabad (AP)-500072 through its Managing Director.

2.       M/s  Sach Trading Company, Adhoya Road, Barara, District Ambala through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Sh. Deepak Saini, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   OP No.1 exparte.

                   Sh. Ashish Sareen, Adv. counsel for Op No.2.                    

ORDER

                    Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that the complainant purchased 05 bags Paddy Seeds Arjun-5455 measuring 3 Kg. each @ Rs.200/- per Kg. costing a sum of Rs.3000/- from OP No.2 vide Bill No.305 dated 14.05.2011 and OP No.2 assured that  the said Paddy Seeds are of best quality and shall provide high yields  being hybrid seed. Complainant sown nursery of said seeds for 5 acres of land on 17.05.2011 and later on, transplanted the same in his fields in June 2011 but the seeds did not properly germinate even after a lapse of more than two months rather grown up in a mixing with two kinds of quality seeds. Complainant approached the Op No.2 who visited the fields and assured for intimating the matter to OP No.1 but none from OP No.1 came at the spot for enquiry inspite of the information supplied by Op No.2 to OP No.1 as confirmed by OP No.2 to the complainant. So, the complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Ambala to visit the spot and to inspect the said paddy seeds, accordingly, an Inspecting Team comprising of three officers of the department visited the fields on 04.10.2011 and submitted detailed report after inspection of the crop vide no.5798 dated 12.10.2011 which is reproduced as under:-

“Two types of paddy plants are present in the field with matured short and matured long respectively resulted due to seed mixing and percentage loss is in the range of 30-32%”.

                   Thus the complainant has contended that due to poor germination of the seeds, complainant suffered a huge loss of Rs.,1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- loss in production of paddy & Rs.50,000/- on expenses) in 5 acres  which is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of Ops in supplying/selling the defective seeds and prayed for  acceptance of complaint as per prayer clause.

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 did not bother to appear before the Forum, as such, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.08.2012. 

                   OP No.2 tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and complainant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it has been urged that complainant never shown that he is owner of 5 Acre of land nor he has submitted any evidence that actually he had sown the same seed which was purchased from the answering OP. Rest of the contents of complaint have also been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                To prove his version, counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-5 and closed his evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of one Sh. Anil Kumar as Annexure RX and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Counsel for the complainant argued that the seed in question was not of best quality and thus it did not germinate upto the mark and gave less yield than expectations.  Report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-3 & C-4) was relied upon by complainant qua ‘two types of paddy plants are present in the field with matured short and matured long respectively resulted due to seed mixing and percentage loss in the range of 30-32%’. As such, counsel for complainant has argued that due to deficient seeds sold by Ops, complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- due to less production of crops in 5 acres of land  as well as expenses incurred thereupon and requested for allowing the complaint.  

                   On the other hand, counsel for Op NO.2 has argued that there was no deficiency in seeds as the complainant has not sown them as per instructions of the Op’s i.e. seed agency and the report (Annexure C-3 & C-4) has been obtained by complainant in collusion with Agriculture Department team comprising of (1) Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Ambala, (2) SMS (PP) O/o SDAO,  Ambala & (3) B.A.O. (Block Agriculture Officer), Barara (Distt. Ambala) whereas as per letter/instructions issued vide Memo No.52-70 dated 03.01.2002 by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to All the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State that  at the time of inspection of fields by the committee comprising of 2 officers of Agriculture Deptt., one representative of Concerned Seed Agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK/HAU should be associated but these instructions have not been complied with meticulously by the officers of Agriculture Deptt. and thus the report relied upon by complainant in this case is no report in the eyes of law.

5.                After hearing the Ld.counsel for the parties and going through the record very minutely, we have come to the conclusion that case of complainant revolves around the report of Agriculture department (Annexure C-3 & C-4) but the Director Agriculture, Hayrana vide their above referred letters has observed and issued directions that “it has been reported by some seed producing  agencies that fields of complainant farmers are inspected by the officers of Agriculture Department without associating the representatives of concerned seed agencies and scientists of CSS HAU, Hisar.  Sometimes cases in court of law are decided after taking into consideration report of these inspections. Therefore, it has been decided that fields of complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientists of KGK/KVK/HAU and report will be submitted to this office immediately after inspection”. The said view of Agriculture Department, Haryana has been further circulated  vide letters issued vide Memo No.1386-1404/TASS dated 14.09.2004 and 744-62/TA(L) dated 18.03.2009. Thus the report (Annexure C-3 & C-4) of some officers of Agriculture Deptt. which is without associating a representative of OP seed company and a Scientist of CCSHAU, Hisar or  KGK/KVK is not an authentic document & cannot be relied upon and  thus on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were not of standard quality.  Further counsel for Op No.2 has placed reliance on case law rendered in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Coop. Ltd.  Vs.  Ram Swaroop, Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014, decided on 26.11.2014 wherein Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi referring to observation of a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd.Vs. Sadhu &Anr. (II(2005) CPJ-13 SC) as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors. (Civil Apeal No.2428/2008) has held that “variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The Apex Court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant. Report of Agriculture Department in the case in hand does not mention about inferior quality of seeds and merely because some of the plants were of low height without any fruit, it cannot be presumed that seeds were mixed with low quality of seeds.” Further the Hon’ble National Commission, has held that “in the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that report obtained by the complainant without notice to OP cannot be relied upon”.

                   In view of the above referred letters/instructions of Agriculture Department, Haryana and observation made by the Superior Courts, we are of the confirmed view that where a complainant alleges inferior quality of seeds and thereby low germination of crop,  it is necessary  that  the team consisted for inspection of the field must associate a representative of OP seed company and a Scientist of some reputed university/KVK/KGK which is lacking in this case. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced:24.06.2016                                                 

                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                        (A.K. SARDANA)

                            PRESIDENT                 

 

                                                                                     Sd/-

                  (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                         MEMBER