THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 216 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 27.04.2012.
Date of Decision: -01.03.2017.
Jagdish son of Sh. Durga son of Sh. Panna, resident of village Dhani Miran and Biswedar of Mouja Chanana, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Sonu Beej Bhandar, Near Sr. Secondary School, Siwani Mandi, District Bhiwani.
- State Farms Corporation of India Ltd., Jaipur, Farm Bhawan, 14-15, Nehru Palace, New Delhi-19.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Present:- None for the complainant.
Shri C.D. Singla, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Shri Ajay Allawadi, Advocate for OP no. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased 8 kgs of Gwar seeds brand H.G. 365 from OP no. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 296/- vide invoice/bill no. 2117 on 13.07.2011 which was produced and manufactured by OP no. 2. It is alleged that he had prepared the agricultural land and sowed Gawar seed. It is alleged that the respondent had assured the complainant that the seeds so purchased by the complainant are very much trusted and good yielding. It is alleged that after sowing the seed and by the passage of time it is found that the growth of gwar plant has gone to the height ranging from 4 to 5 feet and it did not carry any fruit. It is alleged that the complainant asked the respondent no. 1 to see the physical status of the crops lying in the field, but he refused that it is not his business and that since the seeds are produced and marketed by OP no. 2 and he may be held responsible for any defect detected by the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant also visited to the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Bhiwani and on the request of complainant a committee was constituted by Deputy Director Agriculture, Bhiwani for having a look and inspection the crop of the complainant to assess the reason of damage caused to the crops and extent to which the crops of the complainant could not germinated. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that the respondent purchased the certified seed manufactured by respondent no. 2 who sold the same to its distributors namely Durga Sales Agency, Bhiwani which is sister concerned of Jagdish Store, Hisar from whom the respondent purchased the seed in question. It is submitted that the report of department is no report in the eyes of law. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no. 2 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant has never made any complaint to the answering respondent nor made any complaint to its local office. It is submitted that there is no such documentary proof/evidence in the present complaint as well as on the file which proves that seed in question was actually sown and planted by the complainant. It is submitted that the alleged seed was not purchased by the complainant from its authorized dealer, so the answering respondent is not the manufacture company of the alleged seed sold to the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The complainant or his counsel is not appearing since 05.11.2015 and the case is being adjourned time and again in the absence of the complainant. It seems that the complainant is not interested to pursue his case. This is old case, we proceed to decide this case on merits. Arguments of counsels for the Ops heard. We have gone through the record of the case carefully.
5. On behalf of the complainant a bill dated 13.07.2011, Farad Jamabandi and inquiry report has been placed on the file.
6. On the other hand, the counsels for the Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5.
7. Learned counsels for the Ops reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. They submitted that the seed in question was certified seed and manufactured by the State Corporation of India Limited a Government of India Undertaking. In support of the contention they referred Annexure R-5 running into Page No. 1 to 30. They submitted that there is no complaint regarding the germination of the seed in question. The yield depends on various conditions like soil, irrigation, moisture content in the air, rain fall and use of pesticides etc. The timing of sowing of seed is also very important. They submitted that Rajasthan State Seed and organic Production Certification Agency Jaipur, Seed Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture Shri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan have issued certificates for the certification of seed which are detailed in Annexure R-5. The said certificate has been issued under Section 9 of the Seed Act 1946, confirmed the standard prescribed for certification under the Seed Act. They further submitted that the complainant has not produced the copy of Khasra Girdawari, regarding the sowing of the said seed in question in his field, the area of field and the crop so raised or to show the loss to the crop as alleged. They further submitted that the inquiry report dated 26.09.2011 submitted by the team of four persons relates to 43 agriculturists. They submitted that the said team while inspecting the field of the complainant did not call the opposite parties in compliance of the instructions of Government of Haryana issued vide memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002. Therefore, the said report is not binding on the Ops and cannot be considered. Learned counsel for the Ops contended that the inquiry team has not mentioned in their report dated 26.09.2011 that the seed was of poor quality. The counsel for the Ops stressed that the complainant has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act. The counsels for the Ops relied upon the following judgments in support of their contention:-
I Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Versus Sadhu & Another in Civil Appeal No. 1308 of 2005 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
II Mahyco Seeds Company Ltd. Versus Basappa Channappa Mooki and Others with Civil Appeals Nos. 2425, 2426, 2427 of 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 2428 of 2008 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
III Indian Farmers Fertilizers and another Versus Sh. Bhup Singh in Revision Petition No. 2144 of 2014 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
IV Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited Versus Gadesula Harinath & others 2014 (2) CLT 103.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The inquiry report dated 26.09.2011 submitted by the team of four persons is related to 43 agriculturists. The said inquiry report does not disclose dates on which the fields of the respective 43 agriculturist were examined by them and nothing has been mentioned about notice to the Ops i.e. the seller and producer of the seed regarding the inspection of the fields of the agriculturist. The procedure laid down by the Government of Haryana vide Memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002 has not been followed in this case to examine the crops of the complainant. As per the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has not taken any step to procure the analysis of the seed to prove the quality of the seed. On the other hand the Ops have produced the report of seeds as Annexure R-5. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the seed supplied by the Ops was of poor quality. Considering the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:01 .03.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member.
which he was not responsible for any defect detected by the complainant. He also visited the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Bhiwani being a Govt. agency of Haryana to this effect and on the request of complainant a committee was constituted & submitted the report. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that the respondent purchased the certified seed manufactured by OP no. 2 who sold the same to its distributors namely Durga Sales Agency, Bhiwani which is sister concerned of Jagdish Store, Hisar from whom the respondent purchased the seed in question. It is submitted that the respondent purchased the seed in question in a sealed condition from Jagdish Store, Tilak Bajar, Hisar vide a bill and sold the same in the same sealed condition to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant made a wrong record to the agricultural department. It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation because he did not suffer any loss on account of mental agony etc. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no. 2 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant has never made any complaint to the answering respondent nor made any complaint to its local office. It is submitted that there is no such documentary proof/evidence in the present complaint as well as on the file which proves that seed in question was actually sown and planted by the complainant. It is submitted that the alleged seed was not purchased by the complainant from its authorized dealer, so the answering respondent is not the manufacture company of the alleged seed sold to the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The complainant or his counsel is not appearing since 14.06.2016 and the case is being adjourned time and again in the absence of the complainant. It seems that the complainant is not interested to pursue his case. This is old case, we proceed to decide this case on merits. Arguments of counsels for the Ops heard. We have gone through the record of the case carefully.
5. On behalf of the complainant a bill dated 13.07.2011, Khasra Girdawari and inquiry report has been placed on the file.
6. On the other hand, the counsels for the Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5.
7. Learned counsels for the Ops reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. They submitted that the seed in question was certified seed and manufactured by the State Corporation of India Limited a Government of India Undertaking. In support of the contention they referred Annexure R-5 running into Page No. 1 to 30. They submitted that there is no complaint regarding the germination of the seed in question. The yield depends on various conditions like soil, irrigation, moisture content in the air, rain fall and use of pesticides etc. The timing of sowing of seed is also very important. They submitted that Rajasthan State Seed and organic Production Certification Agency Jaipur, Seed Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture Shri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan have issued certificates for the certification of seed which are detailed in Annexure R-5. The said certificate has been issued under Section 9 of the Seed Act 1946, confirmed the standard prescribed for certification under the Seed Act. They further submitted that the Khasra Girdawari produced by the complainant do not show the loss to the crop as alleged. They further submitted that the inquiry report dated 26.09.2011 submitted by the team of four persons relates to 43 agriculturists. They submitted that the said team while inspecting the field of the complainant did not call the opposite parties in compliance of the instructions of Government of Haryana issued vide memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002. Therefore, the said report is not binding on the Ops and cannot be considered. Learned counsel for the Ops contended that the inquiry team has not mentioned in their report dated 26.09.2011 that the seed was of poor quality. The counsel for the Ops stressed that the complainant has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act. The counsels for the Ops relied upon the following judgments in support of their contention:-
I Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Versus Sadhu & Another in Civil Appeal No. 1308 of 2005 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
II Mahyco Seeds Company Ltd. Versus Basappa Channappa Mooki and Others with Civil Appeals Nos. 2425, 2426, 2427 of 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 2428 of 2008 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
III Indian Farmers Fertilizers and another Versus Sh. Bhup Singh in Revision Petition No. 2144 of 2014 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
IV Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited Versus Gadesula Harinath & others 2014 (2) CLT 103.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The inquiry report dated 26.09.2011 submitted by the team of four persons is related to 43 agriculturists. The said inquiry report does not disclose dates on which the fields of the respective 43 agriculturist were examined by them and nothing has been mentioned about notice to the Ops i.e. the seller and producer of the seed regarding the inspection of the fields of the agriculturist. The procedure laid down by the Government of Haryana vide Memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002 has not been followed in this case to examine the crops of the complainant. As per the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has not taken any step to procure the analysis of the seed to prove the quality of the seed. On the other hand the Ops have produced the report of seeds as Annexure R-5. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the seed supplied by the Ops was of poor quality. Considering the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 01.03.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member.
