Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1119/2012

Naveen Kumar S/o Balwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pawan Pesticide - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Kamboj

06 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR.

 

                                                                                                Complaint No. 1119 of 2012

                                                                                                Date of institution: 17.10.2012        

                                                                                                Date of decision: 06.07.2017

 

Naveen Kumar son of Shri Balwant Singh, aged about 32 years, resident of village Bhukhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                        …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Pawan Pesticides, Old Subji Mandi, PO Yamuna Nagar, Railway Station Jagadhri (Haryana) through its proprietor.
2. VNR Seed Prviate Ltd. Ratnagiri, Arcade, First Floor, Opp. Raj Kumar College, GE Road, Raipur-492001(C.G.), India through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                                                                …Respondents

               

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………… .MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND…..…… MEMBER.

 

Present:            Shri Pankaj Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.

                        None for OP NO.1.

                        OP No.2 already ex parte.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter will be referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that 11.05.2012 the complainant has purchased four bags of Hybrid seed bearing its variety No.2355+ Lot  No.3271 from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.2400/- vide bill No.83 dated 11.05.2012. At the time of its purchase, the OP No.1 assured to the complainant that the seeds is being manufactured by the reputed company and it will give satisfactory results to the complainant. After that complainant planted the aforesaid seeds in his four(4) acre of land i.e. land bearing Khasra No.116//12, 13, 14/1, 14/2  situated at village Kharwan and village Nabh, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, and when the above said crop was going to ripen, the complainant found that a few plants of paddy crop were ready for ripen and other most of plants of paddy crop were not ready for ripening and there was a mixture of other seeds in the seed supplied by the OPs. After that complainant moved an application on 12.09.2012 to the Agriculture Deptt. Jagadhri, for getting inspect of his crop and accordingly the team of agriculture deptt. inspected the field of the complainant and it was found that 9-10 % paddy crop has been ripen and remaining 90% crop is in its premature position and further it was reported that there was mixture of other seed in the seed supplied by the OPs. It has been further mentioned that due to the above mixture of the other seeds the complainant has suffered financial loss and the ops were requested to pay the compensation but they flatly refused to pay the same, which constitutes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the loss caused to him due to supply of defective seeds and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement whereas the OP no.2 failed to appeared despite service through Registered Post and he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 10.09.2014. The OP No.1 filed its written statement taking some preliminary objection such as complainant has not followed the provisions of Section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act: “Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods; the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”. But in this complaint no such type of application has been filed by the complainant till today. This view has been held in case titled as Rajinder Singh s. Varinder Singh 1994(2) CP Page 127 Haryana and another case titled as Northern Mineral Vs. Kanshi Ram 1997(3) CPJ 541, Chander Mohan Kaura Vs. M/s Mirck India Ltd. 1998 (2) CPJ 329, Punjab.   Further according to the rule 23(A) (Amendment) of the seeds Rule 1974 if a farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of crop due to defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him the seed inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seed to the extent possible form the complaint for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the seed for detailed analysis of the State Seed Testing Laboratory. But in this case no proceeding was launched against the OPs regarding the supply of this seed because the quality of seeds was confirmed to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under Clause (A) Sector 6 of Seed Act, 1966. It has been further mentioned that Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula issued a directions to all Deputy Directors, Agriculture in the state vide memo No.52-070 dated 03.01.2002 regarding the inspection of farmer fields on receipt of a complaint regarding sale of poor quality seeds and it has been further mentioned that fields of the complainant farmer will be inspected by committee comprising two officers of the agriculture department one representative of concern seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and report will be submitted to the officer immediately after inspection. But in the instant case no committee was insisted at the time of the inspection of the filed of complaint, so report which is prepared by the agriculture department is false and same is prepared with the help of complainant and on merit it has been mentioned that  complainant never visited the OPs regarding any complaint in the seeds. The story put forwarded by the complainant is false concocted, frivolous only to grab the money from the answering OPs. According to the complainant he sow the seed in question in four (4) acre of land whereas the according to the recommendations of various agriculture universities. the said seed should be 6 Kg to 8 kg in one acre. Lastly it has been mentioned that no notice was issued to the OPs prayed to inspection of field by team of agriculture department as alleged in the complaint. Rest contents of the complaint were denied and stand taken in the preliminary objections were reiterated and lastly prayed dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of bill dated 11.05.2012 as Annexure C-1, photocopy of undated report as Annexure C-2, photocopy of death certificate Shri Balwant Singh (father of the complainant) as Annexure C-3, photocopy of Fard Jamabandi as Annexure C-4, photocopy of Khasra Girdwari as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities and his evidence was closed by Court order on 28.06.2017.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased four bags of Hybrid seed bearing its variety No.2355+ Lot  No.3271 from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.2400/- vide bill No.83 dated 11.05.2012. (Ex. C-1).  

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant  argued that the seed supplied by the OP No.1 was having mixing of other varieties and in this regard the complainant moved an application to the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer for inspection of the said paddy crop. The three officers of the Agriculture Department visited the field of complainant and submitted their report (Ex. C-2) mentioning therein that 9 -10 % balia has ripened and remaining paddy crop is ready to ripe. Thus, approximately 9-10% of other varieties were found mixed in the paddy crop. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that due to the supplying of substandard and mixed seed, the complainant has suffered a monetary loss and prayed for compensation.  

9.                     The contention of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality and that was also having mixture of seed of different varieties and to prove his contention he placed the report of Agriculture Department Ex. C-2.

10.                   Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Ex. C-2 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Ex. C-2), it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by three agriculture officers, one Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri,  Quality Control Inspector, Yamuna Nagar, and Agriculture Development Officer, Chhachrauli whereas as per guidelines/instructions issued by Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department Panchkula, vide memo No. 52-70 dated 3.1.2002 TA/SS, for spot inspection there should be three officers out of this two officers from Agriculture Department and one from Krishi Vigyan Kender KGK/HAU and one member of the concerned seed agency but in this case neither any scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kender nor any representative from concerned seed company has been associated at the time of inspection of the field. Even no respectable person like Sarpacnh, Panch or Lumberdar or any neighborer of land has been joined by the inspecting team at the time of inspection of the field. Besides it, 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.

11.                   There is 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 provision nor moved any application to the concerned authority i.e. Agriculture Department or this Forum to get the sample from the OPs and send for analysis.  Further no any notice has been served upon the OPs prior to inspection of the field and thus the report in question prepared at the back of the OPs is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Without any expert evidence on the record as provided in section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act it cannot be said that seed sold to the complainants were adulterated and were of inferior quality. Reliance on this point can be taken from the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies 2007 (2) CLT page 683 and Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others 2013 Volume 2 page 616 National Commission wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that petitioner had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under provision of section 13(1)         ( C ) of the Consumer Protection Act  1986- He had also not moved an application before the concerned authority for getting seed of the same batch, number, tested from any laboratory- report of agriculture department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection- Inferior quality of seed not proved. The observations mentioned in the case laws titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies & Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others (supra) are fully applicable in the present case.

12.                   Apart from above noted facts, complainant has also failed to file any record showing that he has suffered any financial loss. Furthermore, inspection team has totally failed to explain the criteria for assessing the percentage of 9-10% of mixing as mentioned in the report. In the absence of method adopted by the said team, it cannot be said that the criteria adopted by the said committee is correct. The said committee simply mentioned that 9-10 % paddy has ripened and remaining paddy is ready to ripe, it does not mean that there was loss of 9-10%. 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 Ex. C-2 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 and that the same was having mixture of the different variety.   

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.

                               

 

Pronounced in open court.                                         

Dated: 06.07.2017.                                                      (ASHOK KUMAR GARG),

                                                                                    PRESIDENT, DCDRF

                                                                                    YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

                       

 

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

                        MEMBER                                                 MEMBER