Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/890/2013

Raj Rattan S/o Banarsi Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Om Seeds Store - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Kamboj

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 890 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 10.12.2013

                                                                                    Date of decision: 08.08.2017.

 

Raj Rattan son of Banarsi Dass resident of Village Gobindpura, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                 …Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. Om Seeds Store, Old Subzi Mandi, Yamuna Nagar, through its Prop/Owner. 
2. Syngenta India Limited, Amar Paradigm, S.No. 110/11/3, Baner Road, Baner, Pune-411045 (Maharashtra), India, through its Managing Director.   
3. M/s. Ram Trading Company, Bubka Road, Radaur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through its proprietor/owner.   

 

                                                                                                    ... Respondents.  

BEFORE:         SH. DHARAMPAL, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.  

 

Present:           V.K. Kamboj, Counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh. Vaibhav Aggarwal, counsel for the OP No. 1 & 2.

                        OP No. 3 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

 

1.                      Complainant Raj Rattan has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he purchased seeds of paddy of the OP No. 2 i.e. NK-3325 (Syngenta) Lot No. 11100513, weighing 2x8=16 kg for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,600/- vide Bill dated 12-05-2013 from the OP No. 1. So in this way the complainant purchased the above mentioned paddy seeds from the OP No. 1, who is dealer/stocklist of OP No. 2. As such there exists a relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties to the present complaint. It is further submitted that the OP No. 1 assured the complainant that NK-3325 is a product of Syngenta India Ltd. Company, which is a new generation rice hybrid variety offering high yielding advantage to the farmers i.e. approximately 20-25 % higher yield than other hybrid varieties of rice. Acting upon the assurance given by the Op No. 1, nursery was grown up and the same was transplanted in 5 Acres of Land. After transplantation of paddy, the complainant got astonished to see the inadequate yield/growth of the paddy seeds brought from the OPs, which does not come upto the assurance given by the OP No. 1, posing the great risk of economic loss to the complainant as from the date of sowing the seeds till today the complainant has already spent an amount of Rs. 80,000/- in the agricultural operation in this regard. After coming to know regarding inadequate yield/growth, the complainant immediately reported the matter to the Agriculture office, Jagadhri regarding inadequate yield/growth of the paddy crop in the fields. The agriculture office, Jagadhri sent the team of officers on 16-09-2013 for inspection of the fields of the complainant and after inspection they submitted their report and it was mentioned in the report that the farmer/the complainant has sown paddy in five acres of land and found that approximately only 40-45 % of the paddy crops has shown adequate growth whereas remaining plants are yet to grow, which clearly indicates that there is every possibility of economic loss, to be suffered, by the complainant. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OP No. 1 and told him regarding the inadequate growth of the paddy seeds, supplied by them and requested them to compensate the complainant for the same, but in vain. Thereafter, complainant got served a registered AD Notice through his counsel upon the OPs on 30-09-2013, sent on 03-10-2013, and the aforesaid notice was duly served upon the OP No. 1 but till today the Ops did not bother to comply with the terms and conditions of the notice. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is gross negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, for which the Ops are liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and loss of production. As such, the complainant has prayed that his complaint may kindly be allowed and OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 83,600/- on account of expenses, already incurred by the complainant in the agriculture operations, stated above, to pay Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1& 2 appeared and filed its written statement separately whereas OP No. 3 failed to appear despite service, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.02.2015. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainant has concealed the true facts. It is submitted that the OP No. 1 is not liable for any damages if there is any manufacturing defect in the above said product, as the same was purchased by the OP from the authorized distributor “M/s Ram Trading Company, Radaur” vide invoice NO. 864 dated 03-05-2013 (Annexure R-1) in sealed packets of manufacturing company i.e. M/s Syngenta India Ltd. Survey No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm, baner Balewadi Road, Near Hotel Sadanand, Baner, Pune in sealed packets which was duly verified by the complainant at the time of purchase himself. On merits, it has submitted that the complainant purchased 8 packets of paddy seeds from the OP No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 3,600/-. The report issued by the agriculture department is controversial as neither any notice nor any intimation regarding the inspection schedule was ever received by the OP. Moreover, the report issued by the agriculture department is also ambiguous, bias and controversial due to several facts as mentioned herein. Firstly, as there is not any kila No. or khasra No. mentioned in the inspection report from which it can be ascertained that which piece of land was visited by the inspecting team, secondly as per the direction by the director, agriculture, Haryana to all the Distt. Agriculture Departments, it is mandatory to form a inspection team comprising of minimum three members according to which there should be two members from agriculture department, one should be scientist and inspection should be conducted in the presence of representative of the seed agency i.e. either a retailer or the manufacturer, and it should be conducted in the presence of and on demarcation by halqa patwari. But in the present complaint neither any intimation was issued to the answering respondent regarding the schedule of inspection nor any scientist was the member of inspection team and nor inspection was done on demarcation or in presence of Halqa Patwari and moreover if the inspection report is accepted then also on the basis of the facts mention in the report present complaint deserves dismissal as it is clearly mentioned that due to weather conditions and not taking care of crop properly, excess use of fertilizer by the farmer himself, the farmer did not got the proper yield. Rest of the averments made by the complainant in his complaint are wrong, hence denied. As such, there is no deficiency in servic or negligence on the part of Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement taken the same pleas, which are taken by the OP No. 2 in its written statement and prayed for dismissal of complaint.                               

5.                     To prove his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence the affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photocopy of purchase bill as Annexure C1, photocopy of wrapper of seeds as Annexure C-2 to C-3, photocopy of Jamabandi as Annexure C-4, photocopy of Inspection report as Annexure C-5, photocopy of legal notice as Annexure C-6, photocopy of postal receipt as annexure C-7 and photocopy of acknowledgment as Annexure C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 & 2 has tendered into evidence documents Photo copy of invoice dated 03.5.2013 as Annexure R.2/1 and closed its evidence. 

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 as well as have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     Counsel for the complainant has argued that he purchased seeds of paddy i.e. NK-3325 (Syngenta) from the OP No. 1. Acting upon the assurance given by the Op No. 1 that it’s a new generation rice hybrid variety offering high yielding advantage to the farmers i.e. approximately 20-25 % higher yield, nursery was grown up and the same was transplanted in 5 Acres of Land. After coming to know regarding inadequate yield/growth, the complainant approached the matter to the Agriculture office, Jagadhri regarding inadequate yield/growth of the paddy crop. Accordingly, inspection was conducted in the fields of the complainant by the Agriculture office team and they submitted their report and it was mentioned in the report that the farmer/the complainant has sown paddy in five acres of land and found that approximately only 40-45 % of the paddy crops has shown adequate growth whereas remaining plants are yet to grow, which clearly indicates that there is every possibility of economic loss, to be suffered, by the complainant.

9.                     Learned counsel for the OP No. 1 and 2 argued that the report is nothing but it is a waste paper as no notice was ever given either to the manufacturer or to the dealer before inspecting the field of the complainant. There is also a mandatory provision under section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provisions. Learned counsel for the OP No. 1 and 2 further urged that as per report of the agriculture department, it is clear that before spot inspection of the field of complainant, no demarcation was conducted by the official of Revenue Department as no Khasra Number have been mentioned in the report by the inspecting team. Learned counsel for the OP No. 1 and 2 further urged that without demarcation of field, it cannot be stated as to which field the inspection report pertains.

10.                   The contention of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality to prove his contention he placed the report of Agriculture Department Annexure C-5.

11.                   Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Annexure C-5 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Annexure C-5), it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by three agriculture officers, one Agriculture Development Officer, Jagadhri, Quality Control Inspector, Yamuna Nagar, and Block Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri whereas as per guidelines/instructions issued by Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department, Haryana one member should be a scientist, who was not associated as member of the inspecting team. The said report is also not authenticate because the alleged inspection has been made by the officials of the Agriculture Department without getting the land identified from any official of the revenue department prior to spot inspection as no Killa Number or Khasra number has been mentioned in the report and as such it cannot be said with certainty as to which field the inspection report in question pertains. The same view has been held in case titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, IV (2013) CPJ page 186 National Commission, it has been held that Agriculture-Defective Seed-Growth of crop not satisfactory-Loss suffered-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed the complaint- State Commission accepted appeal and dismissed the complaint- Hence revision- When there is complaint by the farmers regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kender- Said inspection had not been followed by the Agriculture Department while giving their report- Factum of the complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or other evidence- No illegality or irregularity in impugned order. Revision dismissed.

12.                   Furthermore, inspection team has totally failed to explain that the seeds used in the field of the complainant are in inferior quality and also failed to mention the exact loss sustained by the complainant due to the seeds in question. They have only stated in the report that there is only possibility of loss. The complainant has totally failed to prove any loss by cogent evidence. So, after going through the above noted discussion and law we are of the considered view that the report Annexure C-5 has no value in the eyes of law and there is no other evidence on the file to prove that seed in question was of inferior quality.    

13.                   Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 08.08.2017.          

                                                                  ( DHARAMPAL)

                                                                  PRESIDENT

                                                                  D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                  AT JAGADHRI

 

 

      (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                       (S.C.SHARMA)

       MEMBER                                                      MEMBER

 

Note:  Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                (DHARAMPAL)

                                                                            PRESIDENT

                                                                     DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR