Haryana

Karnal

CC/436/2020

Tejpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Balvinder Singh

04 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 436 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.19.10.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:04.01.2024

 

Tejpal Singh son of Shri Joginder Singh, resident of Village Jundla, Tehsil and District Karnal.

       

                                               …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

National Horticulture Research and Development Foundation, Post Box No.98, village Salaru, Post office Darar, District Karnal, Haryana, through its Director/authorized signatory/incharge.

 

                                                                         …..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 Balwinder Singh, 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 agriculturist by profession having agriculture land in village Jundla, District Karnal. The OP is engaged in the research and development and sale of seeds of various crops especially Onion.  The  complainant after going through the claim and publicity of the seeds produced by the Op opted to purchase seeds to sow the same in his fields. The complainant purchased onion seeds publicized by OP vide memo No.78845 dated 09.10.2019 weighing 10 KGs. The subsidy of Rs.5000/- was also given and as such a cash amount of Rs.7000/- was paid by the complainant. The complainant had sown the onion seeds to prepare the nursery as per the guidelines/instructions given by the OP. The onion nursery was planted in two and half acres of land as per the recommendations of the OP. The complainant took after the crop by applying the proper fertilizers and also took every precautions needed for the better yield and quality of the onion crop. The complainant was shocked after seeing the slow growth of onion crop. The complainant made frantic inquiries from the OP regarding slow and poor growth of the crop. The complainant requested the OP to depute some official to inspect the standing crops to find out the reason of its slow and poor quality, but the OP ignored the request of complainant and refused to visit and to see the standing crops. When the crop was prepared, the complainant was astonished to see that the size of onion is very small and quality of the same is also inferior. The yield of the crop was 65% less from the claim made by the OP. The OP mislead the complainant by giving misleading publicity and claim. The complainant also made an application to District Horticulture Officer, Karnal, for inquiry and taking the necessary action against the OP. The inquiry was conducted and according to inquiry report dated 24.08.2020, a loss of Rs.1,62,941/- was assessed by the inquiry officer. The assessment of loss is on the lower side as the loss suffered by the complainant is not less than Rs.5,00,000/-. The Inquiry Officer have not taken all necessary parameters while assessing the loss suffered by the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. 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.C1, copy of bill of purchase of seed Ex.C2, copy of J form Ex.C3, copy of loss assessment report Ex.C4, copy of jamabandi Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 04.08.2022 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, copy of order dated 04.02.2021 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 25.02.2021 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 brochure Ex.OP190 and closed the evidence on 26.05.2023 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 complainants, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that the complainant is agriculturist by profession. On 09.10.2019, complainant purchased 10Kgs each onion seed red 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 as the growth of the onion crop was very slow and poor. The size of the onion was very small and the quality of the same is also inferior. The yield of the crop 65% less as stated by the OP. The officer of District Horticulture Officer inspected the spot and assessed the loss of Rs.1,62,941/-, whereas the complainant suffered loss more than the assessed amount. Complainant made many complaints 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 false complaints 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 09.10.2019, vide invoice Ex.C2 and paid Rs.7000/-.

11.           To prove the fact that complainant has occurred financial loss due to inferior quality of the seed, has placed on record J-form  Ex.C3 whereby he has sold produced @ 211/- and also placed on record jamabandi Ex.C5 to show that he is owner of agriculture land and is an agriculturist by profession .

12.           On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the officer of the District Horticulture Officer has visited and inspected the spot and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,62,941/- and intimation in this regard has been given to the complainant vide letter Ex.C4.

13.           As per loss assessment report attached with the case titled as Rahul Versus NHRDF, the complainant has also suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,62,941/-. The abovesaid report was prepared by the District Horticulture Officer, Karnal, on the basis of quality, quantity and market value of the onions.

14.           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.

15.           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.

16.           OP has relied upon the brochure Ex.OP190. 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.

17.           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.

18.           It is pertinent to mention here that Kuldeep Singh and another had filed a complaint bearing No.446/2020, 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.   

19.           As per the letter Ex.C4, complainant has suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,62,941/- due to supply of inferior quality of seed. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith interest, compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

20.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.1,62,941/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of purchasing of seed i.e. 09.10.2019. 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