Haryana

Ambala

CC/261/2022

Harpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Thuha Presticide & Seed Store - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Pal Singh

12 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	261 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	13.07.2022
Date of decision	:	12.12.2024

 

Harpreet Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Rupinder Singh, resident of Village Naggal Gharouli, P.O. Pathereri Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, Haryana (Mobile No.9416965888).

……. Complainant

Vs.

 

1.  M/s Thuha Pesticide & Seed Store, Near Lucky Dhaba, Patiala Road, Zirakpur, Punjab through its authorized signatory.
2. M/s Cultivas Seeds India Private Limited, Address-Plot No.120/P, House No.13-230/3/G, Near Community Hall, Uma Nagar, Medchal Hyderabad Rangareddi, Telangana-501401, through its authorized signatory.

 

….…. Opposite Parties

 

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                        Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                      Shri Sandeep Bakshi, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.                                                                                                                                 OP No.2 already ex parte.

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.8 lacs as compensation towards the damaged crop and also Rs.26,400/- paid as cost of the said sunflower seeds alongwith interest @24%.
2. To pay Rs.1 lac spent by the complainant as cost of fertilizer, Khad, diesel and other fertilizers, irrigating, labour, leveling the field etc.,
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.    
4. To pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation and Rs.22,000/- as counsel fee.
5. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.           The facts in brief are that complainant has purchased 8 Packets of Seeds i.e Sunflower Seed Laxmi 101 2KG per packet vide invoice No.SEED/21-22/526 dated 17.02.2022 for an total amount of Rs.26,400/- from the OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2. At the time of purchase of the seeds, the OP No.1 assured the complainant that the said Sunflower Seeds will give yield of 12 Quintal per acre.  On 20/21.02.2022, complainant sowed the said sunflower seeds in 9 Acres and 6 Marla of land situated at village Gharouli, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala Haryana, but the germination was not proper. Complainant approached the OP No.1 regarding this matter and it assured him that it will inform the OP No.2, about the same. Thereafter, when again the complainant approached the OP No.1 then it told him that it had informed the OP No.2. As and when the complainant approached the OP No.1, it always gave assurance that the said Sunflower seeds give yield of 12 Quintal per acre. From time to time, complainant kept giving manure, water etc. to the said sunflower crop and took care properly. It is further stated that OPs assured the complainant that the said sunflower seeds will give yield of  12 Quintal per acre but on harvesting he got yield of 26.9 Quintal only,  from 9 Acres 6 Kanal of land instead of 116 Quintal(Approximately). Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs and narrated the whole truth, but they instead of compensating, blamed the complainant. Finding no way,  complainant approached the Agriculture Department and the Joint Team of officials of Agriculture Department visited the spot and inspected sunflower crop sown in the field and after proper inspection the said officials prepared their report and thereafter the Deputy Agriculture Director Ambala given the inspection report having serial No.T.S./2899 dated 27.05.2022, to the complainant on 01.07.2022 which is as under:

                   “As per standard, the farmer has rightly sown the seeds in his field. He had sown 8 Packets (2 KG per packet) sunflower seeds in 9 Acre 6 Kanal of land. In the field, approximately 50 to 55% of plants are multiflowering and 45 to 50% have one flower and are normal plants, as such, it appears that the seeds are defective. Under these circumstances, there is apprehension of financial loss to the complainant”.

 

From the aforesaid report, it is clear that the OPs have provided/supplied the poor quality of sunflower seeds due to that reason, complainant has suffered a huge loss. Complainant requested the OPs several times to compensate him for the loss suffered by him but they did not pay any heed to his genuine request. Hence, this complaint

3.           Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that complainant has alleged that he purchased 8 pkts (2 kg each) of Sun Flower seed make Luxmi 101 for a total consideration of Rs.26,400/-, from OP No.1 vide invoice No.526 dated 17.02.2022 for his 9 Acre 6 Marla of Land and later on the said paddy seeds were proved to be ineffective resultantly he suffered a loss. The answering OP is one of the reputed Retailer of Agricultural Products in the area and all the products being sold by it to the farmers are of high quality and meet the High Standards. So far no complaint has been received from any other farmer from the said area regarding the quality of the seeds. The answering OP being retailer purchase the sunflower seed from the dealer i.e Vishal Beej Company in a sealed condition and sell the same in the same condition. It is further stated that neither the Agriculture Department nor the complainant served any notice either verbally or in writing to the answering OP before inspecting the fields of the complainant or before submitting the report regarding the losses suffered by the complainant, on account of any defect in the sunflower seeds allegedly sown by the complainant in his fields. 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. It is further stated that no complaint/intimation was ever sent by the complainant to answering OP 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 Sub Divisional Agriculture Officers, Block Technology Manager and Assistant Technology Manager, Naraingarh is not proper and the inspection report is defective.  Vide letter dated 03.01.2022, Director of Agriculture, Haryana, issued directions that the fields of farmers should be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of agriculture department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU. 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. The Director Agriculture Haryana vide letter dated 18.03.2009, has instructed all Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State to strictly follow the instructions. It was also stated 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. It is further stated that in the inspection report of Agriculture Department, it is nowhere concluded that the multi-flowers on the plants of the sunflower, in the fields of the complainant were on account of the defective seeds only. The inspection report is absolutely silent as to what was the cause of multiflowers. It is only stated that “It seems that the seed is defective”. However, the report of agriculture Department is not supported by any scientific evidence or test report of the said seed, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the answering OP regarding the loss suffered by the complainant. Proper germination of seeds & good crop is always not only depends upon the quality of the seeds but also depends upon so many other factors like 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. It is pertinent to mention here that 2 KG Sun Flower seeds are required to be sown in 1 Acre of land for desired results, whereas, as alleged by the complainant that he had purchased 8 pkts of seeds (2 KG each) and sown the same in 9 Acres 6 Marlas of land. Due to use of less quantity of seeds, the complainant might not have got the desired results. It is further stated that the complainant has alleged that he purchased the sun flower seed on 17.02.2022 and the inspection conducted by the Agriculture Department was on 24.05.2022, when crop was almost ripe and due for harvesting and it is very difficult to access any loss of crop due to defective seeds because in between the said period number of other activities are required to be performed by the farmers like proper watering, use of proper fertilizer, use of insecticide, pesticide, extraction of unnecessary plants and so many other things and above of all good management. It is not clear as to which factor has contributed to the growth of multiple flowers in the field of the complainant. Complainant has not placed on record the copy of the jamabandi or copy of khasra girdawari in support of his version that he was the owner in possession of 9 Acre and 6 Marls of land on the date when he had sown the seeds of sun-flowers. Even no document has been produced by the complainant to prove that he had suffered a loss to the tune as claimed in the prayer clause of the complaint.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced copy of the calculation sheet, Mandi Rates or any other Government rates to prove that he suffered a loss to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- due to defective seed.  Rest of the averments of the complainant was denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2, before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.11.2023.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh son of Late Shri Rattan Singh sole proprietor of OP No.1, Thuha Pesticides and Seed Store, Patiala Road, Zirakpur, District Mohali as Annexure OP-1W/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.   
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.1 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the OPs have supplied defective seeds which resulted into damage of crop of the complainant thereby causing him financial loss and also mental agony and harassment. He further submitted that even in the inspection report dated 27.05.2022, of the Deputy Agriculture Director Ambala, it is opined that around 50 to 55% of the plants have multiflowers and the crop of the complainant has been damaged on account of bad quality of seeds. He further submitted that under these circumstances, the OPs were liable to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him on account of bad quality of seeds supplied to him, but by not doing so, the OPs have committed deficiency in providing service. 
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 while reiterating the objections taken in the written version submitted that the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the seeds sold to him was actually of inferior quality. He further submitted that the report dated 27.05.2022, Annexure C-1/C-2 given by the officers of the Agriculture Department placed on record by the complainant cannot be relied upon because the same have been prepared in the absence of the OPs. 
9.           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 relying upon the report dated 27.05.2022, Annexure C-1/C-2 having been issued by the Officers of the D.D.A., Agriculture Department, Ambala wherein it has been opined that because 50 to 55% of plants are multiflowering and 45 to 50% have one flower and are normal plants, as such, it appears that the seeds are defective. Under these circumstances, there is likelihood of financial loss to the complainant.  Whereas the plea of the OP No.1 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 these reports, 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.  
10.           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 OP No.1 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:- 12.12.2024

 

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