Haryana

Ambala

CC/41/2023

MANPREET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SOHAN LAL AGGARWAL. - Opp.Party(s)

JARNAIL SINGH ,CLERK.

04 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	41 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	03.02.2023
Date of decision	:	04.10.2024

Manpreet Singh aged 35 years son of Shri Ram Chander, permanent resident of village Rattanheri, Tehsil Ambala Cantt and District Ambala, State Haryana. 

……. Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. Sohan Lal Aggarwal, # 52, Partap Mandi Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra through its Proprietor.
2. M/s Bayer Bio Science Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (West) Maharashtra-400607, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       None for the complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                   OP No.1 already ex parte.                                                                                                                                                                                  Shri Sandeep Bakshi, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.6,57,600/- as compensation for the loss suffered due to defective seeds sold by the OPs.  
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.  
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
382.  

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

2.             The facts in brief are that the complainant is the permanent resident of the above mentioned address and having agriculture land in Village Rattanheri, Tehsil Ambala Cantt District Ambala. OP No.1 is running business under the name and style of Sohan Lal Aggarwal situated at 52, Partap Mandi Shahabad (M) District Kurukshetra and it is working as an authorized dealer of the OP No.2 and selling the seeds manufactured, produced and marked by the OP No.2. OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the Hybrid Paddy Arize 6129 Gold and selling and distributing through various dealers including the Op No.1. Thus both the OPs are dealing in production and selling the seeds in collaboration with each other. Complainant had purchased 6 X 3 kg of Hybrid Paddy Arize 6129 Gold on 04.05.2022 from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.F 89 dated 04.05.2022 for Rs.5100/-. The OP No.1 on behalf of the OP No.2 assured the complainant that the Hybrid Paddy seed is of best quality and will give best yielding of paddy crop upto the average of 30 Quintal Per acre. On this assurance, the complainant purchased the said paddy seed and sown the same for plantation of the same in his land situated in the revenue estate of village Rattanheri Tehsil Ambala Cantt, District Ambala. Before plantation the said paddy seed, the complainant had prepared his land by proper plugging the same with tractor and thereafter with the help of labourer planted the paddy crop in his 7.5 acre land between 16.06.2022 to 30.06.2022. Thereafter, the complainant had spent huge amount in irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides and labour work etc. for the development of the said paddy crop. But the complainant was stunt to see that number of plant of paddy crops are very small size and there is no growth on it despite of spreading of fertilizer and pesticides i.e the sheer example of defective seeds. Then the complainant gave an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Ambala for investigation and preparation of report regarding the defective seed quality in the field of the complainant. Thereafter a team was constituted and the said team inspected the 7.5 acre of land of the complainant on 13.09.2022 and the team of Agricultural officer had prepared its report after inspection of the fields of the complainant and mentioned in the conclusion of the report that 70 to 80% plants of paddy crop are of small size and this thing indicate the sub standard quality of paddy seeds and there is a possibility to the farmer of economic loss. The loss of crop was caused to the complainant due to the supply of sub standard and defective seed by the OPs, which is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and both are liable to compensate the complainant for huge financial loss suffered by the complainant. Complainant has incurred the following losses due to supply of defective seeds by the OPs:-

i) Cost of seeds for 6X3 : Rs.5100/-

ii) Cost of plugging & watering :Rs.75,000/-

Rs.10000/- per acre 10000 X 7.5

iii) Fertilizer & Pesticides : Rs.60,000/-

Rs.8000/- per acre (8000 X 7.5)

iv) Labour Rs.3000/- per acre: Rs.22,500/-

5.  

@ 30 Quintal per acre

 

Total Loss: Rs.6,57,600/-

 

Due to the defective seed the complainant suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.6,57,600/- of 7.5 acre and further caused mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. Complainant served a legal notice dated 06.10.2022, upon the OPs, but of no avail. Hence this complaint.

3.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.04.2023.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint has been filed on the false & frivolous grounds which do not exist at all; the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to dismissed as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant etc. On merits, it has been stated that as per report of the Agriculture Department, the loss which the farmer is likely due to the grass stent virus or Phytoplasma Bacteria. Phytoplasmas are obligate bacterial parasites of plant phloem tissue and of the insect vectors that are involved in their plant to plant transmission. Similarly grass stent virus exists in the vector and in the rice crop. Brown planthopper nymphs and adults transmit it where rice is grown year-round. RGSV is generally endemic. The macropterous forms or the long winged adults of the insect are important in spreading the disease than the short winged forms. They feed on the diseased plant for at least 30 minutes to pick-up the virus. Higher infection is attained after prolonged inoculation feeding periods of up to 24 hours. Neither the Agriculture Department nor the complainant himself issued any notice either verbally or in writing to OP No.2 before inspecting the field of the complainant or before submitting the report regarding the losses suffered by the complainant, if any on account of any alleged defect in the paddy seed allegedly used by the complainant for his Crop. The procedure prescribed U/s 38(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is mandatory has not been followed by the Agriculture Department. No complaint/intimation was ever sent by the complainant to OP No.2 about the quality of the seeds and its adverse effects on the germination of the seeds before filing the present complaint. The alleged inspection of field of complainant conducted by said Officers is defective one because of the fact that as per directions issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana vide its letter dated 03.01.2002 the fields of complainant/farmers should have been inspected by a committee comprising two officers of agriculture department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and report will be submitted, thereafter. From the report of the Agriculture Department, it is quite evident that no efforts have been made to join either the representative of the seed agency, the scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU, or the representatives of OP No.2, hence, the present inspection report cannot be relied upon, which is violative of Government Instructions. Moreover, vide letter dated 18.03.2009, the Director Agriculture Haryana again wrote to all Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State to strictly follow those instructions. It was also written that in case any inspection in future is not done as per these instructions, the whole responsibility lies with them. The directions issued by Director of Agriculture vide letter dated 03.01.2002 still exists and those directions have so far neither been modified nor withdrawn by the Director of Agriculture. Bare perusal of the inspection report of Agriculture Department, it is nowhere concluded that the less germination of the Paddy Seeds/small size of plants/ small size of cereals grains was on account of the defective seeds only. The inspection report clearly indicates that the loss to the farmers may be due to the grass stent virus or Phytoplasmas Bacteria for which the farmer has not taken preventing steps by using appropriate insecticide/pesticide. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon OP No.2 regarding the loss suffered by the complainant. Proper germination of the paddy seeds & good crop is always dependent upon not only of the quality of the seeds but also depends upon so many other factors like quality & quantity of the seeds, quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer, quality of pesticides used by the farmer & weather conditions prevailing at the relevant time. The complainant has failed to point out in the complaint about the other factors & their effectiveness. Seeds are always manufactured by manufacturing companies by batch process. Each batch contains Quintals of seeds. M/s Bayer Bio Science Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of the said seed, which is engaged in this manufacturing process since last so many years and the product being sold by it are popular amongst the farmers due to their high quality. The products manufactured by it are thoroughly analyzed by the technically expert and highly qualified specialists in the laboratories of the manufacturer company, which are equipped with the modern equipment and machineries. These products are allowed for the sale only after they pass the strict quality control analysis procedure and found according to the specification. Therefore, there is no possibility of any loss by using the said product in accordance with the prescribed process. Similarly the present product which was also analyzed on 30.04.2022 before sending into the market for sale had passed the quality test & thereafter the same was sent in the market. Copy of the lab test report dated 13.03.2023 (test date 30.04.2022) is annexed herewith as Annexure OP-2/6 and copy of instructions for use are appended herewith as Annexure OP-2/7. The complainant has miserably failed to prove his ownership/Tenancy & possession on the land measuring 7.5 acres on which he allegedly sown the seeds because he did not produce any Khasra Girdawari showing his ownership and possession and cultivation on the said land at relevant time to prove that the seed which he has purchased vide invoice no. F-89, dated 04.05.2022, was in fact sown in the said land which allegedly later on proved to be defective. The complaint is completely silent about the 'method of application' of alleged product, if proven to be used, i.e. when and in what manner they were used, what was the disease in the complainant's crop & what type of pesticide was sprayed by him & at whose instance. The complainant, thereby, concealed this vital information which establishes that the alleged product, if proven to be used, was not used in accordance with the method recommended and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the complainant's own negligence and his own wrongs. Environmental conditions i.e. the climate and weather conditions at the time of application of any product plays vital role for getting the desired results but in the instant matter the complainant has deliberately concealed this material fact from his complaint. Rest of the averments of the complainants were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Abhinav Sankhyan, working as Commercial Manager & Responsible Person for Crop Protection Business from Bayer Bio Science Godrej Eternia, Plot No.70, 3^rd Floor, Tower B, E3-CDE, Industrial Area Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002 as Annexure RW2/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP2/1 to OP-2/10 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           None put in appearance on behalf of complainant at the time of arguments, accordingly, we have heard the learned counsel for the OP No.2 and have also carefully gone through the case file.  
7.           On the other hand, learned counsels for OP No.2 while reiterating the objections taken in the written version submitted that as per report of the Agriculture Department the loss which the farmer is likely to suffer be due to the grass stent virus or Phytoplasma Bacteria. He further submitted that it is evident from the report of the Agriculture Department that the farmer has not used the appropriate pesticide to prevent the deterioration of his crop from the grass stent virus or Phytoplasmas Bacteria. He further submitted that neither the Agriculture Department nor the complainant himself issued any notice either verbally or in writing to the OPs before inspecting the field of the complainant or before submitting the report regarding the losses suffered by the complainant, if any on account of any alleged defect in the paddy seed allegedly used by the complainant for his Crop. He further submitted that the procedure prescribed U/s 38(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is mandatory has not been followed by the Agriculture Department and without that it could not be possibly opined that the seeds purchased by the complainant was defective and that the loss if any suffered by the complainant was on account of the seeds purchased by the complainant. He further submitted that no complaint/intimation was ever sent by the complainant to the OPs about the quality of the seeds and its adverse effects on the germination of the seeds before filing the present complaint. He further submitted that the alleged inspection of field of complainant conducted by the said experts/Officers is defective one because of the fact that as per directions issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana vide its letter dated 03.01.2002 that the fields of complainant/farmers should have been inspected by a committee comprising two officers of agriculture department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and report will be submitted, thereafter. He further submitted that Proper germination of the paddy seeds & good crop is always dependent upon not only of the quality of the seeds but also depends upon so many other factors like quality & quantity of the seeds, quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer, quality of pesticides used by the farmer & weather conditions prevailing at the relevant time.
8.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether the complainant has been able to prove his case or not. It may be stated here that to prove his case, the complainant is solely relying upon the inspection report dated 06.09.2022, Annexure C-3 having been issued by the Officers of the Agriculture Department, Ambala wherein it has been opined that after inspection on the spot, it was found that in the fields the plants were of dwarf size, in which there is no possibility of grain formation. Only in some areas pimples appeared (small pores) on the earrings/plants which are of very small size. According to estimates, a farmer’s field of 12 acres is likely to produce an average of 5 to 6 quintals per acres. The dwarfism/small size of plants can be caused by grass stunt virus or phytoplasma bacteria. Whereas the plea of the OPs is that no reliance can be placed on the said report because no notice regarding inspection of the crop by the Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ambala was received by them and the inspection was done in their absence. In the case of Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company and Anr. II (2013) CPJ (NC), it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the report of agriculture department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating the OPs with inspection. Further in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited Vs. Ram Sarup CLT 2014-63 (NC), it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that report obtained without notice to the OP cannot be relied upon. Except the inspection report, no other evidence has been placed on record by the complainant, thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the above-referred case, we are of the opinion that the report given by the officers of the Agriculture Department cannot be relied upon as the same has been prepared in the absence of the OPs.  
9.           At the same time the complainant has also failed to place on record, report of any laboratory to ascertain that the seeds in question sold by the OPs to him were of inferior quality. In Devender Kumar & Ors Vs. Amsons Lab Private Ltd.& Ors. reported in CPJ 2014(IV) page 575 the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  has held that Purchase of pesticide-Defect-Damage to crop-Loss suffered-Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission allowed appeal-Hence, revision-Complainants have not placed on record any laboratory report to substantiate that crops were damaged 100% due to application of pesticide-Report of Agriculture Development Officer only reveals that there was 100% damage to wheat crop-These officers have not carried out any test to ascertain whether 100% damage to wheat crop was due to application of purchased pesticides or not-Defects not proved. In case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Bhup Singh, in Revision Petition No.2144 of 2014, DOD: 9.4.2015, it is observed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, the germination of any kind of seed, is based on so many factors, such as, proper preparation of the land, fertilization, proper pesticides, proper irrigation, climate, and proper nourishment which again affected by seasonal vagaries which are not under the control of any human agency, for example, if there was no proper moisture in the land, there will not be proper germination. Lesser moisture or excess moisture affects the germination. Similarly, excessing use of fertilizer, also affects then, the climates such as, pouring of rain at proper time or improper time.  Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that without getting the seeds in question tested from appropriate laboratory, except physical inspection of the site aforesaid which is in violation of the relevant directions of the competent authorities, it cannot be said that the seeds in question were of inferior quality/sub standard. Thus, the version of complainant alleging that the seed sold by OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, were of inferior quality is not believable. As such, we do not hesitate to conclude that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same. Parties are left to bear their own costs.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 04.10.2024

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President