Haryana

Karnal

884/2008

Satbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sahib Seeds Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Navdeep Rana

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.884 of 2008

                                                               Date of instt. 10.12.2008

                                                               Date of decision:30.09.2015

 

Satbir  son of Shri Prem Singh resident of V.P.O.Panjokhra district Karnal.

                                                                 ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

M/s Sahib Seeds Ltd. Shop No.8, Subzi Mandi Seed Market, head office SCF No.11, New Subzi Mandi, Karnal through its prop.

                                                           ……… Opposite party.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                      Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 

 Present:       Sh.Navdeep Rana Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Kapoor Advocate for the OP.

 

ORDER:

 

                        The   facts giving rise to the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( hereinafter referred to as the Act) are that complainant purchased two bags of paddy seed  Pussa 1460, Basmati quality from Opposite Party ( in short OP)  for an amount of Rs.6000/- vide invoice No.499  dated 3.5.2008.  Both the bags were opened on 6.5.2008 in the presence of Ram Kumar son of Sh.Gurdayal resident of  Panjokhra  and it was found that each bag had  five small packets containaing 4 Kgm paddy seed each. Seed contained in nine packets was sown by Ram Kumar in a  piece of land, which was prepared for raising paddy nursery and one packet was kept by him (complainant). The paddy nursery so raised was got planted by him in four acres of land owned by his father. Paddy was transplanted by labourers  Ram Kumar, Kuldeep and Sanjay all sons of  Gurdayal Singh residents of   village Panjokhra from  7.6.2008 to 9.6.2008. Thereafter, he tried to return  extra packet of the paddy seed to the OP on 9.6.2008,  but OP refused to receive the  same saying that goods once sold were not returnable. Therefore, the said packet remained in his possession. It has further been alleged that complainant got suspicion in September, 2008 that his paddy crop was not of Pussa Basmati type, therefore,  he complained to the OP and thereafter to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal.  On 6.10.2008, a team deputed by Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal  inspected his paddy crop and gave report, according to which crop was not of Basmati type, but the same was of non basmati.  The complainant made complaint to the OP regarding giving non basmati paddy seed instead of Basmati Pussa 1460 but the OP paid no heed to his complaint and thus he suffered financial loss.  It has also been submitted that complainant sold his paddy crop to Jagdish son of Daya Ram resident of  Gadpur Khalsa . The total weight of the product was 68.92 quintals and the rate was Rs.850/- per quintal, whereas Pussa 1460 was being sold @ Rs.2659/- per quintal.  In this way, he suffered loss of approximately Rs.1,24,000/-.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP who  appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that compliance of provisions of Section 13(1)(c)  of the Act was not made; that complaint was not maintainable in the present form and that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that seed in question was sold in a sealed packet and there was no question of mixing on the part of the OP.   Before selling the seed in the market, the lot of the said seed was checked and then the same was sent to the market. The complainant neither approached the OP nor OP received any information from the office of Deputy Director Agriculture,  Karnal for inspection  of the land of the complainant . If, there was any mixing  that was on the part of the complainant. The report of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal was prepared at the instance of the complainant and behind the back of the OP. Moreover, no khasra number of the land inspected by the team of  Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal was mentioned in the report. It has also been averred that germination of the seeds depended upon  so many  factors  like fertility , quality and preparation of land, mode of sowing,  atmosphere, environment and  ability and qualification of grower. No other person made any complaint regarding the seed of the same lot sold to them. It has also been alleged that paddy crop was not planted by the complainant due to negligence   on his part and the seed in question was of good quality. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, affidavits of complainant, Ram Kumar, Kuldeep and Sanjeev  Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 respectively and documents Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 have been tendered.

 

4.                On the other hand in evidence of the OP, affidavit of Subhash Khurana proprietor  Ex.RW1  has only been tendered.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                Admittedly, the complainant had purchased seed of Pussa 1460 Basmati variety from OP on 3.5.2008 vide bill, the copy of which is Ex.C6.  As per case of the complainant, he prepared nursery of the said seed and got  transplanted the same in four acres of land but it was found that it was not of Pussa 1460 Basmati rather the same was non basmati variety. The OP has disputed this allegation of the complainant.

 

7.                     The learned counsel for the OP vehemently argued that complainant was having one packet  of the said seed with him and the same must have been got tested from some laboratory  to find out whether the seed was of Pussa Basmati -1460 or non Basmati variety, but neither the complainant made any effort   in that direction nor this Forum got  tested the sample packet for compliance of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act.         The Learned counsel for the OP further laid emphasis on the contention that team  of the Technical Committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal did not give any notice to the OP before  inspecting the fields, therefore, report is not binding upon OP.  It has further been averred that no record of Jamabandi  and khasra girdwari  has been produced for establishing  that the complainant had sown paddy in his four acres of land.  Even the report submitted by the Committee is undated, therefore, such report cannot be relied upon.  In support of his contention he relied upon  Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.Ltd. Vs.Parchuri Narayana  2009 (V) CPC 471 and  Jallandhar Singh Vs.Tau Agrotech Private Ltd.and another  2010(3) CLT page 504.

 

8.                There is no dispute regarding proposition of law laid down in the aforecited authorities, but the same were  based upon the facts peculiar to those case, whereas the facts of the present case are,  obviously, on different footings.    In Jallandhar Singh’s case (Supra),  allegation of the complainant  was   BT Cotton seed was defective. Respondent company produced affidavit of two farmers who also purchased same seed and sown the same in their fields and they stated that yield of crop was very good, all the seed germinated, size of balls was very good and seed was of good quality.  Under those circumstances, it was held by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh that appellant did not produce seed in the Disitrict Forum for analysis of the same in the laboratory. It was also not alleged  by the complainant that he had sown whole seed and as such he was  unable to produce the same for analysis from appropriate laboratory.  The  report of  ADO was not  believable as he had not given any notice to the OP regarding inspection of the crop. Neither copy of the application moved by the complainant  to the Chief Agriculture Officer nor copy of the order passed by him  was  produced and no date was mentioned   on the report regarding inspection of the crop. The complainant failed to prove his allegation that seed which was purchased by him was of sub standard quality and was not pure.  In Parchuri Narayana’s case (Supra) Hybrid jawar seed purchased by the complainant was found to be defective  resulting in low yield of crop. The quality of seed was not got tested from some laboratory as per provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that quality of seeds should have been determined by  adopting procedure given u/s 13(1) (c) of the Act  and not merely on the basis of assumption and presumptions.

 

9.                In the instant case, it is not  the allegation of the complainant that quality of the seed was defective rather  the allegation is that seed was  not of Pussa 1460 Basmati  variety rather the same was  of non basmati variety. Therefore, getting tested seed from some laboratory was not required. During pendency of the complaint, OP moved an application for getting tested the sample seed from some laboratory. Complainant filed reply to the said application. After going through the contents of the application and the case file, the application was dismissed, vide order dated 15.9.2011. The said order was not challenged by the OP before any Appellate or Revisional Forum, therefore, the OP has no right to agitate the  same issue at the time of final arguments.

 

10.               As per affidavits of complainant, Ram Kumar, Kuldeep and Sanjeev Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 respectively, the complainant had raised paddy nursery from the seed of  P-1460 purchased by him from OP on 3.5.2008 and the same was got transplanted in four acres of land, but later on it was found that paddy crop was not of Pussa- 1460 Basmati rather the same was of non basmati  variety.  Moreover, on the request of complainant, Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a technical committee to inspect the crop of the complainant and report  about the same. Copy of the report Ex.C7 shows that Technical Committee consisting of  Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Karnal and  Sr.Coordinator, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, CCS, HAU, (Karnal)  inspected four acres of the paddy fields of complainant on 6.10.2008 and observed that all the four acres  of paddy crop was  short stature, medium duration and non basmati type.  No doubt, there is no material on the file on the basis of which it can  be said that  notice was given by the Technical Committee to the OP before inspecting the fields of the complainant, but  the  report cannot be ignored merely on this ground.  On 6.10.2008, crop must be at the ripening stage and it could very well be observed from naked eyes as to whether crop  was of Basmati or non basmati variety. There was no dispute regarding the quality of seed because  seeds germinated well but the dispute was  with regard to the  variety. OP has not produced any evidence on the basis of which it can be said that seed of same lot was sold to other farmers also and none of them raised any complaint regarding variety of the seed.  Copies of bills regarding sale of same lot of seed to other farmers and affidavits of such farmers in support of the plea of the OP could be the best available evidence but OP did not produce such evidence for the reasons best known to him.  Thus, the OP has not led any cogent evidence to rebut the overwhelming evidence of the complainant regarding the fact that seed sold to him was of non basmati  type variety, whereas he had purchased Pussa – 1460 Basmati variety, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant. Under such circumstances, it is established that OP sold the seed of non basmati variety to the complainant instead of Pussa-1460 basmati variety.  In this way, the OP sold defective seed of other variety and as such resorted to unfair trade practice also.

 

11.               Now we advert to deal with the question as to whether, the complainant suffered financial loss on account of  supply of non basmati variety seed by the OP instead of Pussa – 1460 basmati variety and if so, to what extent.

 

12.               In para no.10 of the of the complaint, the complainant alleged that he sold his four acres paddy crop to Jagdish son of Daya Ram resident of Gadpur Khalsa and the same  weighed 68 quintal 92 Kilograms and the rate was Rs.850/- per quintal, whereas the sale price of Pussa- 1460 was Rs.2650/- per quintal and thus, he suffered loss of Rs.1,24,000/- approximately.  He reiterated his allegations by way of his affidavit Ex.C1. However, no documentary evidence worth the name has been produced regarding the sale of 68.92 quintal of paddy crop by him to aforesaid Jagidsh @ Rs.850/- per quintal.  Even minimum support price of non basmati  variety in the year 2008 was more  than Rs.850/- per quintal. Therefore, self serving statement of the complainant that he sold  68.92 quintals  of paddy crop @ Rs.850/- per quintal cannot be believed.  The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the rate of Pussa Basmati-1460 in the year 2008, therefore, his solitary statement that market rate of the said variety was about Rs.2650/- per quintal cannot be, accepted. However, at the same time it cannot be ignored that Basmati variety was sold at higher rate than non basmati variety.  In the absence of any definite evidence, the difference of rate at the most may be considered at Rs.500/- per quintal. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to consider the yield as 15 quintals per acre.  Therefore, under such circumstances, the approximate loss of the complainant can very well be considered as Rs.30000/- on account of supply of non basmati variety seed by OP to him instead of Pussa Basmati 1460 variety.

 

13.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.30000/- to the complainant for loss suffered by him.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The OP shall  make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:30.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.NavdeepRana Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Kapoor Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 30.9.2015.

 

Announced
dated:18.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

Present:        Sh.NavdeepRana Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Kapoor Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:30.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member