Haryana

Karnal

CC/282/2015

Ranbir Singh S/o Ram Saran - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Seeds Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M.R. Sangwan

22 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                             Complaint No.282 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt. 17.11.2015

                                                                 Date of decision: 22.08.2017

 

Randhir Singh son of Shri Ram Saran resident of villager and P.O. Padha Tehsil Assandh District Karnal.

               

                                                                      ……….Complainant.

                                                        Versus

 

1. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. 425-426 Sector-3 Karnal, through its Area Manager.

2. National seeds Corporation Ltd. through its Regional Manager, Regional office plot no.388 face 9 Industrial Area Mohali (Punjab).

3. Nation Seeds Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director, Head office Beej Bhawan PUSA Complex New Delhi.

.                                          

                                                                       …..Opposite Parties.

 

                Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.   

       

 

Before       Sh. Jagmal Singh……. President.

                Ms. Veena Rani ………..Member.

                Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

               

 

 Present      Shri M.R. Sangwan Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri S.R.Chauhan Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act  1986, on the averments that he purchased 30 Kilograms paddy seeds from the opposite party no.1, vide bill no.61913 dated 1.6.2015 for an amount of Rs. 1350/-. He had sown the said seed in 4.5 acres and spent Rs.20,000/- per acre for ploughing planting, fertilizing etc. When the crop grew up, it was found that there was mixing in the said seed. He approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal on 7.10.2015 and made complaint about the same and copy of the same was also sent to opposite party no.1.  The Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted the inspection committee, consisting ADO, BAO and Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Karnal. The said team visited of his fields and submitted report, vide order no.3739 dated 7.10.2015. It was clear from the report that off type/other variety plants in the fields was 49% which were in grain formation/tall/dwart/panicle formation stage. He suffered loss of Rs.4,00,000/- due to the mixed seed supplied by the opposite parties, apart from mental pain, agony and harassment.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has got no locus standi  and cause of action to file and maintain the complaint; that the complaint is not legally maintainable because no laboratory tests or analysis about the standard of seed produced by the complainant, which was mandatory and essential to verify the quality of the seed; that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and concealed the true and material facts; that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

                On merits, it has been submitted that when the fields of the complainant were inspected by the team of Deputy Director Agriculture, then no representative of the opposite parties was joined, which was very much essential and necessary as per law. Hence the report produced by the Deputy Director Agriculture is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the opposite parties.  It has been pleaded that when the official of the opposite parties asked the complainant to give the tag/label as well as bag of the seed and also sample of the seed used by the complainant, but he did not give anything, without which it was very difficult to inspect the fields and to determine the fact that whether the seed used by the complainant belongs to the opposite parties company or not. It was denied that the seed of other variety was also mixed up.  Hence complainant was not suffered any kind of loss due to any fault of the opposite parties. In this way, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied.

3.             In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 have been tendered.

4.             On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of M.C. Roohilla, Area Manager Ex.OPW1/A , affidavit of Madan Pal Ex.OPW2/A and documents OP1 to Ex.OP10 have been tendered.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not in dispute that the complainant purchased 30 kilograms seeds in question from opposite party no.1, vide bill dated 1.6.2015 Ex.C1 for a total sum of Rs.1350/-. The dispute between the parties is that as per the complainant when the paddy crop fully grown up, then the complainant found that the plants in his fields were of mixed varieties and there were other plants than the plants of PB 1509 purchased by the complainant. The complainant has placed on the file inspection report dated 7.10.2015 of the Committee constituted by Agriculture Department, the copy of which is Ex.C2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the Committee has not given any notice to the opposite parties at the time of inspection of the fields of the complainant and no representative of the opposite parties was joined in the inspection team, so it cannot be ascertained that whether there was any uneven germination or not. He further argued that an employee of the opposite parties namely Madan Lal, on receipt of complaint from the complainant and demanded the label, seed container and sample of unused seed from the complainant, but the complainant did not supply the same. He also argued that the compliance of Section 13(1)© of the Consumer Protection Act has not been made.

7.             On the appraisal of the rival contention of both the parties, we found that the Inspection Committee constituted by the Agriculture Department has submitted its report dated 7.10.2015 Ex.C2. It has been specifically mentioned in the said report that the Technical Committee has visited to the fields of the complainant and examined the 4.5 acres of paddy crop on 7.10.2015 in the presence of the complainant. It is further concluded by the Committee in its report that there was off type/other variety plant is 49% which are in grain formation/tall/dwarf/panicle formation stage. From the contents of this report of the Agriculture Department it is very much clear that the crop of the complainant was heavy mixed plants which indicates that the seed purchased by the complainant was not of good quality and there was a mixing in the seed. It is also clear from the evidence of the opposite party no.1 that on receipt of complaint from the complainant, an employee namely Madan Lal of opposite party no.1 has also visited the fields of the complainant on 10.10.2015 and demanded the label, seed container and sample of unused seed from the complainant, but the same were not supplied by the complainant to that employee of the opposite party no.1. Only on the basis of not supplying of the above by the complainant, that official has held in his report Ex.OP/1 that the complaint of the complainant is false and nothing is mentioned about the mixed plants in the fields of the complainant.

8.              It is pertinent to mention here that no doubt the opposite parties have placed on the file seed analysis report Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP10 regarding the nine separate lots, vide which they wants to prove that the samples were upto the mark. The complainant has placed on the file, the copy of the bill Ex.C1, but in this bill the opposite parties have not mentioned any batch number. So, without mentioning the batch number in the bill Ex.C1 by the opposite parties, it cannot be ascertained that the test reports Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP10 are regarding the same batch number which was sold by the opposite parties to the complainant. Therefore, the test reports produced by the opposite parties are not helpful to the opposite parties.      In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. So, the contention of opposite parties regarding compliance of the provision of section 13(1)© of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has no force. In this context , we can rely upon the authority reported as M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Versus M.Madhusudhan Reddy and others, 2012(1) ACJ page 265 (SC) the facts of this authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the seed sold by the opposite parties to the complainant was of mixed variety and not of good quality. Hence, the opposite parties have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

9.             Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.8000/- per acre (Rs.8,000 x4.5 acre) i.e. total amounting to Rs.36,000/-and to refund Rs.1350/- as cost of the seed to the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The opposite parities are jointly and severally liable. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the abovesaid amount is not paid within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of announcement of this order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 22.08.2017

                                                                        (Jagmal Singh)

                                                                           President,

                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                        (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)

                          Member           Member