BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.191/12.

Date of instt.: 05.07.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 05.05.2015.

Megh Raj s/o Charan Singh r/o Village Urlana, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. M/s. Thind Pesticides & Seed Store through its Proprietor Ramthali Samadha, Distt. Kaithal.

2. M/s. New Pankaj Trading Co. Chhoti Mandi Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal.

3. Kamboj Seeds, VPO Indri, Distt. Karnal, through its proprietor.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Jagdeep Dhull, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Harpal Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

Op No.2 already exparte.

Op No.3 already given-up.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased the wheat seeds of quality HD-2932 of 40 Kg. and DPW-621 of 40 Kg. for the value of Rs.840/- and Rs.1450/- respectively from Op No.1.  It is alleged that the seeds HD-2932 was manufactured by the Op No.3 and the seeds DPW-621 was manufactured by Op No.2.  It is further alleged that the Op No.1 asked the complainant to sown the above mentioned wheat seeds in the agricultural field in the month of October and as per the direction of the Op No.1, the complainant sown the seeds in his agricultural land of 2 acre.  It is further alleged that now when the crop grown up, the complainant noticed that the skyclap (upper part of wheat crops) of the wheat crops are not fully developed due to which, the complainant suffered the 40% less crops from estimated crops because the skyclap (upper part of wheat crop) were not fully developed and it should have been 15 to 17 but it was an 7 to 9 only.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 3 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 20.02.2014.  Op No.3 was given-up being unnecessary by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide separate statement recorded on 05.03.2014.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary and proper party.  The answering Op has purchased the alleged seed from M/s. New Pankaj Trading Company, Chhoti Mandi, Cheeka vide bill No.633 dt. 22.10.2011.  The said M/s. New Pankaj Trading Company and the manufacturer of the alleged seeds are the proper and necessary party and without impleading them as party in the present complaint, the present complaint is not maintainable.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

6.     On the consideration of rival contentions of counsel for both the parties, we find the contention of counsel for the complainant is without force.  Thus, before proceeding ahead we would like to mention that provision of section 13(1)( c) of the Consumer Protection Act is mandatory. For further discussion, the same is  reproduced below:

“Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or tests of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complain ant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the samples so sealed to the appropriate laboratory alongwith a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its finding thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.

d) before any sample of the goods is referred to any appropriate laboratory under clause ( c), the District Forum may require the complainant to deposit to the credit of the Forum such fees as may be specified, for payment to the appropriate laboratory for carrying out the necessary analysis or test in relation to the goods in question;

e) The District Forum shall remit the amount deposited to its credit under clause (d) to the appropriate laboratory to enable it to carry out the analysis or test mentioned in clause © and on receipt of the report from the appropriate laboratory, the District Forum shall forward a copy of the report alognwith such remarks as the District Forum may feel appropriate to the opposite party;

f)if any of the parties disputes the correctness of the findings of the appropriate laboratory, or disputes the correctness of the methods of analysis or test adopted by the appropriate laboratory, the district Forum shall require the OP or the complainant to submit in writing his objections in regard to the report made by the appropriate laboratory;

g) the District Forum shall thereafter give a reasonable opportunity to the complainant as well as the opposite party of being heard as to the correctness or otherwise of the report made by the appropriate laboratory and also as to the objection made in relation thereto under clause(f) and issue an appropriate order under section 14………………….

A perusal of the same it transpired that under this provision it is the complainant who is required to get the sample of the seeds tested in a laboratory and this provision is mandatory in nature. In the authority of Hon’ble National Commission reported as Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Parchuri Narayana, 2009(1) CPC page 471, wherein Hon’ble National Commission has observed that 13(1)(c) is mandatory in nature.  The quality of any seeds/product is required to be determined by sending a sample to the Chemical Laboratory as per the procedure given in section 13(1)(c) and not merely on basis of assumptions and presumptions and the order in appeal which was based on the report of Advocate Commissioner is set aside. This provision is mandatory in nature its non-compliance by the complainant is fatal.  Because under the provision of section 13(1)(c), the complainant is required to get the sample tested through some recognized laboratory. The OPs, however, can raise the objections and they can file the objection before the Forum and they can get the sample tested.  In order to prove that the seeds supplied were defective, the Asstt. Director of Agriculture, who is the Seed Inspector appointed under Section 13 of Seeds Act of 1966 should have taken action in accordance with Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Rule 23A of the Seeds (Amendment) Rules, 1974, by taking samples of the seeds either from complainant or from the suppliers, namely the appellants and got them analyzed by the Seed Analyst.  Having failed to do so, his inference based on the observation of inadequacy of pollens will not carry any conviction that the foundation seeds supplied to the complainant were defective.   

7.     In the present complaint, the complainant alleged that there is less grow in the wheat crop.  The assertion of the complainant is based on the report of expert committee.  A perusal of the same, it reveals that on 19.01.2012 the committed had inspected the fields of complainant and on inspection they found that the complainant had sown the seeds of quality HD-2932 and DPW-621 in two acres field.  The development of crop was normal and according to complainant, the two kind of seeds was sown on 24.10.2011, which is the early date, whereas the date of sown of said seeds is at about 15 November and as such, the ballias early came up.   So, the report of Agriculture Department in the present case is not considered to be helpful to the complainant. 

8.     Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, reasoning and finding, we consider no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.05.05.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.191/12.

Date of instt.: 05.07.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 05.05.2015.

Megh Raj s/o Charan Singh r/o Village Urlana, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. M/s. Thind Pesticides & Seed Store through its Proprietor Ramthali Samadha, Distt. Kaithal.

2. M/s. New Pankaj Trading Co. Chhoti Mandi Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal.

3. Kamboj Seeds, VPO Indri, Distt. Karnal, through its proprietor.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Jagdeep Dhull, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Harpal Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

Op No.2 already exparte.

Op No.3 already given-up.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased the wheat seeds of quality HD-2932 of 40 Kg. and DPW-621 of 40 Kg. for the value of Rs.840/- and Rs.1450/- respectively from Op No.1.  It is alleged that the seeds HD-2932 was manufactured by the Op No.3 and the seeds DPW-621 was manufactured by Op No.2.  It is further alleged that the Op No.1 asked the complainant to sown the above mentioned wheat seeds in the agricultural field in the month of October and as per the direction of the Op No.1, the complainant sown the seeds in his agricultural land of 2 acre.  It is further alleged that now when the crop grown up, the complainant noticed that the skyclap (upper part of wheat crops) of the wheat crops are not fully developed due to which, the complainant suffered the 40% less crops from estimated crops because the skyclap (upper part of wheat crop) were not fully developed and it should have been 15 to 17 but it was an 7 to 9 only.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 3 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 20.02.2014.  Op No.3 was given-up being unnecessary by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide separate statement recorded on 05.03.2014.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary and proper party.  The answering Op has purchased the alleged seed from M/s. New Pankaj Trading Company, Chhoti Mandi, Cheeka vide bill No.633 dt. 22.10.2011.  The said M/s. New Pankaj Trading Company and the manufacturer of the alleged seeds are the proper and necessary party and without impleading them as party in the present complaint, the present complaint is not maintainable.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

6.     On the consideration of rival contentions of counsel for both the parties, we find the contention of counsel for the complainant is without force.  Thus, before proceeding ahead we would like to mention that provision of section 13(1)( c) of the Consumer Protection Act is mandatory. For further discussion, the same is  reproduced below:

“Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or tests of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complain ant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the samples so sealed to the appropriate laboratory alongwith a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its finding thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.

d) before any sample of the goods is referred to any appropriate laboratory under clause ( c), the District Forum may require the complainant to deposit to the credit of the Forum such fees as may be specified, for payment to the appropriate laboratory for carrying out the necessary analysis or test in relation to the goods in question;

e) The District Forum shall remit the amount deposited to its credit under clause (d) to the appropriate laboratory to enable it to carry out the analysis or test mentioned in clause © and on receipt of the report from the appropriate laboratory, the District Forum shall forward a copy of the report alognwith such remarks as the District Forum may feel appropriate to the opposite party;

f)if any of the parties disputes the correctness of the findings of the appropriate laboratory, or disputes the correctness of the methods of analysis or test adopted by the appropriate laboratory, the district Forum shall require the OP or the complainant to submit in writing his objections in regard to the report made by the appropriate laboratory;

g) the District Forum shall thereafter give a reasonable opportunity to the complainant as well as the opposite party of being heard as to the correctness or otherwise of the report made by the appropriate laboratory and also as to the objection made in relation thereto under clause(f) and issue an appropriate order under section 14………………….

A perusal of the same it transpired that under this provision it is the complainant who is required to get the sample of the seeds tested in a laboratory and this provision is mandatory in nature. In the authority of Hon’ble National Commission reported as Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Parchuri Narayana, 2009(1) CPC page 471, wherein Hon’ble National Commission has observed that 13(1)(c) is mandatory in nature.  The quality of any seeds/product is required to be determined by sending a sample to the Chemical Laboratory as per the procedure given in section 13(1)(c) and not merely on basis of assumptions and presumptions and the order in appeal which was based on the report of Advocate Commissioner is set aside. This provision is mandatory in nature its non-compliance by the complainant is fatal.  Because under the provision of section 13(1)(c), the complainant is required to get the sample tested through some recognized laboratory. The OPs, however, can raise the objections and they can file the objection before the Forum and they can get the sample tested.  In order to prove that the seeds supplied were defective, the Asstt. Director of Agriculture, who is the Seed Inspector appointed under Section 13 of Seeds Act of 1966 should have taken action in accordance with Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Rule 23A of the Seeds (Amendment) Rules, 1974, by taking samples of the seeds either from complainant or from the suppliers, namely the appellants and got them analyzed by the Seed Analyst.  Having failed to do so, his inference based on the observation of inadequacy of pollens will not carry any conviction that the foundation seeds supplied to the complainant were defective.   

7.     In the present complaint, the complainant alleged that there is less grow in the wheat crop.  The assertion of the complainant is based on the report of expert committee.  A perusal of the same, it reveals that on 19.01.2012 the committed had inspected the fields of complainant and on inspection they found that the complainant had sown the seeds of quality HD-2932 and DPW-621 in two acres field.  The development of crop was normal and according to complainant, the two kind of seeds was sown on 24.10.2011, which is the early date, whereas the date of sown of said seeds is at about 15 November and as such, the ballias early came up.   So, the report of Agriculture Department in the present case is not considered to be helpful to the complainant. 

8.     Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, reasoning and finding, we consider no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.05.05.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.