Haryana

Karnal

CC/211/2021

Rajeshwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Seeds COrporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vinesh Vats

31 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 211 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.09.04.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:31.05.2024

 

Rajeshwar son of Shri Surender Kumar, resident of village Shergarh, tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. National Seeds Corporation Limited Sub Unit Karnal through its Manager.
2. National Seeds Corporation Limited Regional Office plot no.24, Phase IX, Industrial Area Mohali through its Manager.

 

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Vinesh Vats, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Randeep Singh Rana, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Dr. Suman Singh, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and earns his livelihood from that source. The complainant and his father are joint owner in possession of agricultural land situated in village Shergarh, District Karnal. The complainant alongwith his father has purchased paddy PB 17-18 FIS bags x 10kg, lot no.Oct 19-07-306-15 paddy PB 1509 3bags x 10 kg lot no. Oct-19-07-306-19 from the OP no.1, vide bill no.004 dated 04.05.2020 and the said bill has been issued in the name of Surender Kumar father of complainant. The official of the OPs assured that they shall provide the seeds of good quality. After purchasing the seeds, complainant prepared the nursery and when the nursery was ready thereafter the same was planted in the fields as per the norms and instructions of the OPs after plaughing the fields. The said seeds were planted in 4 ½ acres. The complainant put the pesticides and fertilizer in the said crops as per the norms and instructions of the OPs. The complainant has spent more than Rs.20,000/- per acre. When the crop was ready to come out only half of the plants had germinated. After seeing the situation of the crop, complainant approached the OPs and told about the situation of the paddy crop. OPs made inspection and found that some of the paddy crop was ready to come out and some of the paddy seeds had germinated and some had still not come out. Complainant moved an application before the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal to inspect the Agriculture land of the complainant and to report about the loss. Thereafter, the officials of the Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal constituted a committee and visited the fields of the complainant and inspected the paddy crop and observed that the seeds provided by the OP no.1 to the complainant is not of PB1509. The officers of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal have assessed the loss to the tune of 35% to 40%. The seeds provided by the OPs to the complainant were of inferior quality and due to this the complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per acre. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs and requested to compensate him on account of inferior quality of seeds, but OPs did not listen to the complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 19.02.2021 to the OPs through his counsel but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as per allegations leveled in the complaint regarding the constitution of technical committee by the Deputy Director, Karnal and its report. No information regarding the alleged visit to the fields of complainant was given to the OPs. The report as well as alleged inspection was made behind the back of the OPs. The complainant failed to retain the sample of the crop for getting tested in the Government lab. so that it can be ascertained if there is any defect in the seed. He further argued that the weather and climate which badly affect the yield as well as other activity of the crop, the blast as well as other disease are effecting the crops  growth, flowering due to the global warming and the same are the beyond the control of the OPs. The complainant failed to explain in the complaint:

1. Whether he had followed proper and prescribed agronomic procedure and had applied efforts and taken care as was necessary for growing the variety, hybrid.
2. Whether the seed were sowed at the appropriate time.
3. Whether appropriate climatic condition required  for sowing the crop were present and whether the alleged loss is on account of adverse climatic conditions and the failure of the complainant in taking appropriate safeguard under such adverse climatic condition.
4. Whether the crop had been effected due to inappropriate application of fertilizer which usually lead to lack of nutrient availability in the soil.
5. Whether the water( if it is of the tubewell) was tested or not which badly effect the crop if it is polluted.
6. Whether appropriated agronomic practices were followed and appropriate irrigation and other inputs subsequent to sowing of seeds were provided by the complainant.
7. That  ascertain the abovesaid questions in order to decide the complaint and to satisfy the contention of the complainant the report of the technical committee there involve complicated question of facts and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

        It is further pleaded that OPs sold the good quality from same lot to many farmers and no one has made any complaint. Neither the OPs nor their agent was associated with the committee and no inspection was done in the presence of OPs and its agent. Report given by the complainant is false, frivolous and concocted on the instance of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 04.05.2020 Ex.C1, copy of application regarding compensation for mixing of seeds to Agriculture Department Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, copy of inspection report Ex.C4, copy of aadhar card Ex.C5, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C6, copy of jamabandi Ex.C7, copy of legal notice Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 29.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitender, Area Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of Grower’s Debit Memo Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 28.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for 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 complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had purchased the seeds of paddy PB 17-18 from the OPs and sowed the said seeds in their fields. OPs supplied the inferior quality seeds due to that complainant has suffered a great loss. Complainant made a complaint before Deputy Director Agriculture Officer, Karnal for inspection of the crop. The authorities concerned constituted a committee and inspection committee visited their fields on 17.09.2020 and prepared the inspection report and found  35% to 40% seeds to be of other varieties and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsels for OPs, while reiterating the contents of written versions, have vehemently argued that the seed crop, like any other crop depends, apart from the seed quality, upon agro climatic conditions, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients, and effective use of fertilizers etc. Besides proper germination of seed, correct agricultural practices have to be followed. The complainants have not followed recommended agriculture practices and have failed to apply recommended fertilizers and insecticides. He further argued that complainants have not sent seed sample to seed test laboratory for analysis and failed to produce seed testing report of laboratory as per section 38 (2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, which is mandatory. The official of the Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant in the absence of OP. Hence said inspection report has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           Complainant has alleged that the seed sold by the OPs was inferior quality and due to supply of inferior quality seeds, he has suffered a huge loss. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Rather, OPs have alleged that the paddy seed sold to the complainant was from big lot of 400 quintals and in this regard they have placed on file Grower’s Debit memo Ex.OP2 and the said entire lot has been sold in the market to various farmers but except the complainant, no other farmer made any complaint regarding mixing/inferior quality of the seed. Complainant has failed to examine any other farmer who had also purchased the same variety seeds of same lot from the OPs having any complaint with regard to mixing of seeds and also failed to prove on record financial loss suffered due to seed supplied by the OPs.  

11.           Furthermore, complainant has alleged that OPs have sold the inferior quality seeds but as per inspection report Ex.C4, it was found that the plants of other varieties were present. It is common practice of farmers to prepare the various types of nurseries of different varieties of seeds by dividing the land in small parts like kyaris. Therefore, the possibility of alleged mixing on the hands of complainant and his labourer cannot be ruled out.   

12.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:31.05.2024.                                                                   

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

    

                (Dr. Suman Singh)

               Member