Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/203/2011

Anil Sandhu S/o Jagir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Zimidara Trading Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Ranbir Singh

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 203 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 10.03.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 16.02.2016.

Anil Sandhu aged about 37 years  s/o Sh. Jagir Singh R/o Village Saidupur, Block Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

                                                             Versus

1. M/s Zimidara Trading Co. Village Sherpur Sulkhani, District Ambala, through its Prop./Partner. 
2. M/s Kisan Trading Co. Near Sabzi Mandi Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar. 
3. NODAI Seeds India (P) Ltd. (09-10) 38^th Mile Stone NH-8 Behrampur Road, Gurgaon.  

 

                                                                                                                                                        ...Respondents.  

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: None for complainant.

              OPs No.1 & 3 already ex-parte.

              Sh. S.S.Saini, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Anil Sandhu has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- on account of loss of yield, expenses, labour, sprinkling pesticides fertilizers etc. alongwith compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.

 2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased three bags of paddy seed of Hybrid Paddy 9433 (Nodai Seed) Batch No. HPCL 3006 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs. 1890/- vide receipt No.005 dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure C-2). The complainant got prepared the plant of paddy by spending Rs.4000/- by providing manure. After preparing the plants of paddy the complainant planted the said plants in his agriculture land measuring four (4) acres by spending Rs. 15000/-. The complainant also spent huge amount for nourishing the paddy crop by providing labour, manure and by sprinkling pesticides and spent Rs. 5000/-. After two months the complainant felt that the said seed is not according to specification and the same has some mixture of some other seeds. The said paddy crop had grown up in very uneven manner. Some plants were grown up early and some plants grownup lateron. The complainant reported the matter to the OP No.1 who did not give any satisfactory reply. Finding no other alternative, the complainant moved an application to the Agriculture Department, for the inspection of loss. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar had constituted a team and as per direction of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar,  Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri, Quality Control Inspector, Yamuna Nagar and Block Agriculture Officer, Sadhaura inspected the field of complainant and prepared a report (Annexure C-1) and found that there is mixing of 20% of other brand. As such, the OPs sold the sub standard and mixture paddy seeds to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1& 2 appeared and filed its written statement separately whereas OP No. 3 failed to appear despite service, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.03.2015. Thereafter, OP No.1 failed to appear after filing the reply, hence he was also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated13.0.32015. OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has got no locus standi, bad for non joinder of necessary parties, not maintainable, complainant has concealed the true facts, stopped by his own act and conduct and on merit it has been admitted that the complainant came to the shop of OP No.1 and demanded hybrid paddy seed 9433 (Nodai Seed) India Pvt. Ltd. from the respondent which was duly supplied to the complainant as per his wishes. The complainant might have not sown the seed as per the recommendations and might have mixed the same with some other seed at his own in order to get more profit and yield. The OP No.1 supplied the packed seed to the complainant as per his wishes, which the OP No.1 purchased from M/s Kisan Trading Co. Sadhaura. The complainant himself might have not properly sown, watered the said seed and had mixed the same with some other seed and now has filed the false & bogus complaint. As such, there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as pcomplaint is not maintainable, no locus standi to file the present complaint, no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and on merit it has been submitted that the OP No.2 supplied the seed of best quality and those seeds were testified by the Laboratory approved by the Govt. of India and sold the sealed packets as it is so received from company to Op No.1 who is sub dealer, so question of any mixing on the part of Op No.2 does not arise at all. It has been further submitted that the Op No.1 who is sub dealer has taken the paddy seeds from OP o.2 in a sealed packed as it is supplied to OP No.2 by Nodai Seeds India Pvt. Ltd. (09-10) 38^th Mile ?Stone NH-8, Behrampur Road, Gurgaon 122001 vide sale invoice No. Sale/GGN/10-11/123 dated 11.05.2010. Copy of sale invoice is annexed as Annexure R-2/1.The remaining all allegations are denied by the Op No.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.                               

5.                     As the complainant failed to lead any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order on 23.12.2015. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit and documents such as Photo copy of report of Agriculture Department as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of invoice No.005 dated 17.05.2010 of seed as Annexure C-2, Photo copies of Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 as Annexure C-3 and C-4 with the complaint in support of his complaint.

6.                     On the other hand, OP No.2 has tendered into evidence document Photo copy of  sale invoice dated 11.5.2010 as Annexure R.2/1 and closed its evidence. 

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     Complainant alleged in his complaint that he purchased three bags of paddy seed of Hybrid 9433 of Nodai Seed  (Manufactured by OP No. 3) bearing Batch No. HPCL 3006, for an amount of Rs. 1890/- vide receipt/Bill No. 005 dated 17.05.2010 (Annexure C-2).   Complainant further alleged in his complaint that the seed supplied by the OP No.1 was having mixing of other varieties and in this regard the complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture Yamuna Nagar for inspection of the said paddy crop. The three officers of the Agriculture Department visited the field of complainant and submitted their report (Annexure C-1) mentioning therein that 10% balia has ripen and 10% paddy crop is ready to ripe. Thus, approximately 20% of other varieties were found mixed in the paddy crop. Complainant further alleged in his complaint that due to the supplying of substandard and mixed seed, the complainant has suffered a monetary loss and prayed for compensation.   

9.                     Learned counsel for the OP No.2 argued that the report is nothing but it is a waste paper as no notice was ever given either to the manufacturer or to the dealer before inspecting the field of the complainant. There is also a mandatory provision under section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provisions. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further urged that as per report of the agriculture department, it is clear that before spot inspection of the field of complainant, no demarcation was conducted by the official of Revenue Department as no Khasra Number have been mentioned in the report by the inspecting team. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further urged that without demarcation of field, it cannot be stated as to which field the inspection report pertains. So, it is quite clear that the inspecting team has tried to give undue benefits to the complainant in their report and referred the case laws titled as Anand Singh Vs. Khurana Seed Store and another, 2007(1) CPC page 95 Haryana State Commission, Panchkula, Narender Kumar Versus M/s Arora Trading Company and others, 2007(2) CLT page 683 Haryana State Commission, Panchkula.

10.                   It is not disputed that complainant had purchased three bags of paddy seed of Hybrit 9433 of Nodai Seed  (Manufactured by OP No. 3) bearing Batch No. HPCL 3006, for an amount of Rs. 1890/- from the OP No.1 vide Bill No. 005 dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure C-2).   

11.                   The contention of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality and that was also having mixture of seed of different varieties and to prove his contention he placed the report of Agriculture Department Annexure C-1.

12.                   Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Annexure C-1 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Annexure C-1), it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by three agriculture officers, one Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri,   Quality Control Inspector, Yamuna Nagar, and Block Agriculture Officer, Sadhaura whereas as per guidelines/instructions issued by Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department Panchkula, vide memo No. 52-70 dated 3.1.2002 TA/SS, for spot inspection there should be three officers out of this two officers from Agriculture Department and one from Krishi Vigyan Kender KGK/HAU and one member of the concerned seed agency but in this case neither any scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kender nor any representative from concerned seed company has been associated at the time of inspection of the field. Even no respectable person like Sarpacnh, Panch or Lumberdar or any neighborer of land has been joined by the inspecting team at the time of inspection of the field. Besides it, the said report is also not authenticate because the alleged inspection has been made by the officials of the Agriculture Department without getting the land identified from any official of the revenue department prior to spot inspection as no Killa Number or Khasra number has been mentioned in the report and as such it cannot be said with certainty as to which field the inspection report in question pertains. The same view has been held in case titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, IV (2013) CPJ page 186 National Commission, it has been held that Agriculture-Defective Seed-Growth of crop not satisfactory-Loss suffered-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed the complaint- State Commission accepted appeal and dismissed the complaint- Hence revision- When there is complaint by the farmers regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kender- Said inspection had not been followed by the Agriculture Department while giving their report- Factum of the complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or other evidence- No illegality or irregularity in impugned order. Revision dismissed.

13.                   There is a mandatory provision under section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provision nor moved any application to the concerned authority i.e. Agriculture Department or this Forum to get the sample from the OPs and send for analysis.  Further no any notice has been served upon the OPs prior to inspection of the field and thus the report in question prepared at the back of the OPs is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Without any expert evidence on the record as provided in section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act it cannot be said that seed sold to the complainants were adulterated and were of inferior quality. Reliance on this point can be taken from the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies 2007 (2) CLT page 683 and Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others 2013 Volume 2 page 616 National Commission wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that petitioner had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under provision of section 13(1)         ( C ) of the Consumer Protection Act  1986- He had also not moved an application before the concerned authority for getting seed of the same batch, number, tested from any laboratory- report of agriculture department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection- Inferior quality of seed not proved. The observations mentioned in the case laws titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies & Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others (supra) are fully applicable in the present case.

14.                   Apart from above noted facts, complainant has also failed to file any revenue record i.e. Khasra Girdawari showing his ownership and cultivation of land or file any documentary evidence to prove that he has cultivated any land after taking from any other person on lease or any other way. Furthermore, inspection team has totally failed to explain the criteria for assessing the percentage of 20% of mixing as mentioned in the report. In the absence of method adopted by the said team, it cannot be said that the criteria adopted by the said committee is correct. The said committee simply mentioned that 10% paddy has ripen and 10% paddy is ready to ripe, it does not mean that there was loss of 20%. The complainant has totally failed to prove any loss by cogent evidence. So, after going through the above noted discussion and law we are of the considered view that the report Annexure C-1 has no value in the eyes of law and there is no other evidence on the file to prove that seed in question was of inferior quality and that the same was having mixture of the different variety.    

15.                   Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 16.02.2016.          

                                                                               (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                               (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                MEMBER