Haryana

Karnal

CC/325/2020

Beeru Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Horticultural Reasearch And Development Foundation - Opp.Party(s)

Jagmal Singh Chauhan

04 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 325 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt. 28.08.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:04.01.2024

 

Beeru ram son of Shri Kishna, resident of Village Ramba, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

National Horticulture Research and Development Foundation, Regional Salaru, Tehsil and District Karnal, through its authorized signatory.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member       

      Dr. Suman Singh….…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri J.S.Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Rohit Gupta, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is a farmer by profession and on 07.10.2019, the complainant had purchased 10 KG onion seeds from the OP of NHRDF-RED breed @ Rs.1200/- per KG and subsidy of Rs.5000/- was also given to the complainant vide cash memo No.77079. As per the guidelines and instructions of OP, the complainant sown the said onion seeds in 2.5 acres of land and also used the pesticides etc as per the instructions and guidelines of OP but lateron, the said seeds was found of inferior quality and the crop that grew was not of red colour and the shape was also not round. Dardu/bolting was also seen in the said crop and ultimately the complainant had informed the District Horticulture Officer, Karnal. The spot was inspected by the official of District Horticulture Department and assessed the loss to be of Rs.1,19,121/-, however, the loss suffered by the complainant is more than as assessed by the said officer of the District Horticulture Karnal. The complainant approached the official of the OP and requested to do the needful into the matter and compensate the complainant, but they paid no heed to the genuine request of the complainant, rather misbehaved with him. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 20.07.2020 upon the OP requesting the OP to make the payment of damages/compensation to the complainant but despite the legal notice, the OP has not paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The OP supplied the wrong seed to the complainant and due to this the complainant has suffered huge loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction, concealment of true and material facts, estoppel and cause of action, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that OP has been running a research centre in the name of National Horticulture Research and Development Foundation at Salaru, District Karnal and used to sell tested and best quality seeds to the farmers as per Indian Seed Act, 1966. The OP is well known onion seed producers of different notified varieties in the country and produced seed as per Indian Seed Act 1966 under close supervision of qualified and experienced scientists and no question of selling/distribution of is sub-standard quality seed to Onion growers like the complainant. The complainant has not placed on record copy of any revenue records in token of his ownership of the land. It is denied that the complainant allegedly sown the onion seeds in his land as per guidelines and instructions of the OP. The colour bolting etc. depends on various package of practices adopted by the farmers and climatic conditions prevalent at that time. The sale rate of onion bulb in the market also depends on quality of onion bulbs. The quality of onion bulbs of the same seed lot depends on package of practices adopted by the farmers such as soil condition, use of FYM, Chemical fertilizers, preparation of seedlings in nursery days of transplanting in main field, irrigation practice, application of weedicides, pesticides and insecticides, curing, sorting and grading of onion after harvesting etc. The sale rate of onion in the market also depends on arrival in market as well as quality of onion bulbs. It appears that the complainant has not supplied correct information to his counsel and the complainant is coercing the OP to put pressure upon the OP by serving notice on wrong facts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of loss assessment report of OP Ex.C1, copies of applications moved to OP Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, copy of bill/invoice Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, copy of postal receipt Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 30.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of B.K.Dubey, Deputy Director, Ex.OP1/A, copy of seed germination testing report Ex.OP1, copy of list of farmer to whom seed sold of the same lot Ex.OP2, copies of bills/invoice of farmers Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP181, brochure Ex.OP182, copy of summons and complaint Ex.OP183, copy of order dated 04.02.2021 Ex.OP184, copy of summons and complaint Ex.OP185, copy of order dated 04.02.2021 Ex.OP186, copy of summons and complaint Ex.OP187, copy of order dated 25.02.2021 Ex.OP188, copy of summons and complaint Ex.OP189, copy of order dated 25.02.2021 Ex.OP190 and closed the evidence on 20.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that the complainant is agriculturists by profession. On 07.10.2019, complainant purchased 10Kgs onion seed from the OP. Complainant planted onion seed as per the instructions and guidelines of the OP but lateron said seeds were found of inferior quality and the crop was not of red colour and were not of round shape and Dardu/bolting in the crop was seen. The variety of the onion was not the same as had been mentioned in cash memo. The OP has supplied the inferior quality of the onion seed. The growth of the seed was also not good and there was no proper germination. The officer of District Horticulture Department inspected the spot and assessed the loss of Rs.1,19,121/-, whereas the complainant suffered loss more than the assessed amount. Complainant made many requests to the OP but OP did not pay any attention to the genuine request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the seed purchased by the complainant was not inferior quality rather it was the superior quality. This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. Complainant also failed to place on file, revenue record of the land of the complainant. The lot of the seed was purchased by many farmers and out of which, some have made any complaint with regard to inferior quality of the seed. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant only just to grab the money from the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainants have purchased the onion seeds from the OP on 07.10.2019, vide invoice Ex.C4 and paid Rs.7000/-.

11.           On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the officer of the District Horticulture Department has visited and inspected the spot and prepared the report Ex.C1, which is reproduced asunder:-

 

 

 

Sr. No.	Name and address of farmer	Block	Area	Estimate loss
1.	Beeru Ram son of Shri Kishana Ram, Village Ramba	Karnal	2.5	Rs.1,19,121/-
2.	Pardeep Kumar son of Shri Telu Ram, Village Ramba	Karnal	2	Rs.41,343/-

 

12.           As per said report complainant has suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,19,121/-. The said report was prepared by the District Horticulture Officer, Karnal, on the basis of quality, quantity and market value of the onions.

13.           OP has taken a plea that the complainant does not come within the definition of ‘consumer’ under section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. We do not agree with the said plea taken by the OP and in this regard we placed reliance case law cited in M/s Nadan Biomatrix Ltd. Versus S.Ambika Devi & Ors in Civil Appeal nos.7357-7376 of 2010 date of decision 06.03.2020, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that since the plantation was for the purpose of earning of livelihood, therefore, the petitioner is falls under the definition of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. Keeping in view the law laid down in the abovesaid citation, facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant comes within the definition of consumer.

14.           OP has relied upon the list of onion sale seed subsidy Rabi 2019-2020 as Ex.OP2. As per said list, the complainant and other farmers have purchased the seed from the OP. In this regard, OP has also relied upon the bills/invoices Ex.OP3 to Ex.181.

15.           OP has relied upon the brochure Ex.OP182. This brochure relates to National Horticulture Research and Development Foundation New Delhi. There is a lot of difference between the climate of New Delhi and Haryana. Hence, the abovesaid brochure does not support the case of the OP.

16.           Admittedly, consumers Aman, Paramjit, Pardeep Kumar and Shiv Bhagwan had filed complaints against the OP on the same cause of action. The said complaints have been withdrawn by the abovesaid complainants on the ground that matter has been compromised, on this point, learned counsel for the OP submits that abovesaid complaints have been withdrawn by the complainants on their own and nothing were paid by the OP. We do not agree with the said contention of the OP because when the abovesaid complainants had filed the complaints while spending the litigation expenses on the same cause of action as to why they would withdraw the same without any consideration. It has also been proved from the said complaints, the seed sold by the OP were of inferior quality.

17.           It is pertinent to mention here that Kuldeep Singh and another had filed a complaint before this Commission on the same cause of action and the said complaint has already been allowed vide order dated 01.02.2023. The OP has filed appeal against the said order passed by this Commission before the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Haryana, wherein Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Haryana, directed to OP to deposit awarded amount before this Commission after deducting statutory amount and the OP has deposited the said awarded amount before this Commission and the same has already been released to the DHs on their furnishing of adequate security.   

18.           As per the report Ex.C1, complainant has suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,19,121/- due to supply of wrong onion seed. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith interest, compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

19.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.1,19,121/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of purchasing of seed i.e. 07.10.2019. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of 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: 04.01.2024

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                          Member                     Member