Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/6

Harpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Varinder Dhiman, Adv

31 May 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 06 of 10.01.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    31.05.2019

 

Harpreet Singh, son of late Kuldeep Singh, resident of Village Khant, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgrah Sahib.    

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, through its Director, Ludhiana
2. Department of KVK Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Near Badi Haveli, Rupnagar through its Director. 
3. Department of KVK Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Morinda, through its Manager cum Director
4. Deputy Commissioner cum Collector, Rupnagar. 

           ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Varinder Dhiman, Adv. counsel for complainant  

Sh. D.S. Deol, Adv. counsel for O.Ps. No.1,2 & 4

              O.P. No.3 exparte

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1. Harpreet Singh, son of Late Kuldeep Singh, resident of Village Khant, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay the compensation/damages of Rs.56,640/- per acre of Jirri crop (Rs.1770 at the rate of 32 Quintals per acre), total land is about 6.5 acres along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of sowing the crop; to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of fertilization and cultivation expenses per acre and return the cost of seed; to pay Rs.50,000/- mental agony and physical harassment; to pay Rs.10,000/- per acre potato crop or loss of crop which is to be sown in future very next to this crop, total claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, in the interest of justice. 
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant connected with the O.Ps. since long. O.P. No.1 is Agriculture University and doing the work for the benefits of farmers. In this year, the O.Ps. had advertised the new type of jirri seeds and induced the farmers to purchase the said new jirri seeds P.R. 126. On believing, the complainant had purchased the seeds from the unit of certified standard and qualities. The O.Ps. No.2 & 3 had supplied the seeds to the farmers after entering their name and distinction of the farmers in their maintained registered and at the time of selling the seeds, O.Ps. had also not issued the bills. In the month of 15 May 2018, for the purpose of sowing the crop of jirri, the complainant had purchased the said seeds (P.R. 126) which were sown for (Paniri) and thereafter sown the same on 22 June 2018 in their fields. The complainant for the purpose of sowing the said seeds, took the lands on lease from the owners of land in different villages. The quality of the seeds were totally different as assured by the O.Ps. Due to supply of defective seeds, the complainant had suffered mental and financial loss and also failed to return the loan amount. At the time of purchasing the seed, the O.Ps. had given the assurance to him that the production of the seed would be 32 quintal per acre and crop would be ready in 123 days but to no use. The complainant contacted the O.Ps. and moved the complaint regarding the supply of defective seeds to farmers and loss suffered by the farmers/complainant and they also took the sample of crops from various fields and gave the assurance to provide the compensation to the complainant. But till today no action has been taken by the O.Ps. Hence, this complaint. 
3. On notice, O.Ps. No.1,2 & 4 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as the allegations are wrong, false and concocted one; that the complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands; that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as complicated questions are involved in this complaint. On merits, it was stated that there is no evidence or any documents produced by the complainant to prove that whichever seeds was purchased by him from the answering O.Ps. was infact used by him in his fields for that purpose. If there was any doubt in the mind of the complainant then he has not taken the proper yield from the said seeds, he has to firstly prove that he has used the same seeds. This fact can be proved only before cutting the crops or to harvest the said crops, if the complainant have got some evidence by appointing any local commissioner at the time of harvesting the said crops and the said local commissioner will get the evidence by getting it harvested and to produce the said harvested crop in this forum. There is prima facie no evidence to prove the allegations leveled by the complainant. Whether the complainant had taken the proper care after using the proper seeds. It was further stated that more than 72 farmers in different villages of Rupnagar District had purchased this seed and the answering O.Ps. had also sold the said seeds to many farmers in Kharar and other villages of SBS Nagar and Samrala Sub Division but except the complainant and some other persons, other farmers never agitated the matter nor filed any complaint against the answering O.Ps. As per the real facts, the PAU had visited the complainant's field and nothing was found wrong on the part of O.Ps. However, a field inspection report was issued by Agricultural Officer, Morinda but this report is not valid because the agricultural officer had not mentioned the names of other paddy varieties mixed in the complainant field. This report had not been prepared on scientific basis. No expert committee was constituted to assess mixture/losses to the crop. They had not performed any crop cutting experiment to assess the yield of the affected field. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4.  On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.3, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.03.2019. 

5.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.1,2 & 4 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Ahuja, Assistant Professor (Horticulture), KVK Rupnagar, Ex.OP1/1 along with documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/85 and closed the evidence.  

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully. 

7.    Complainant counsel Sh. Varinder Dhiman, argued that complainant is the farmer, who purchased seeds 24 KG for 6.5 Acre from the O.Ps. but at the time of sale, no receipt was issued. After producing paniri it was sown in the land as per the specification. In the month of September, 2018, the complainant found in his fields some plants were of the longer size and some were small. Some plants were going near to ripe whereas bigger plants were immature. The complainant along with other farmers protested against the O.Ps. firstly for the non issuance of the receipt  of sale of seed and qua the impurity of seeds PR-126. Complainant also moved application before the Agriculture Officer, Morinda, who after inspection submitted the report proving deficiency relating to the impurity of the seeds and qua the loss per acre Rs.5500/. The learned counsel then pointed out the receipt, ADO report affidavit and other documents beside the university rules and lastly prayed that deficiency stands proved, complainant is a consumer and the complaint deserves to be allowed with costs.

8.    Sh. D.S. Deol, counsel for the O.Ps. No.1,2 & 4 argued in terms of the written reply as well as evidence. He pointed out that so far the arguments of the complainant relating to the non issuance of the receipt is totally false and argument is beyond pleadings. Complainant nowhere pleaded in the complaint qua the said fact of receipts. He then argued that complainant purchased from the OP No.3 and spot was inspected by ADO but neither the notice issued to the complainant nor to the ADO. So the report prepared in the absence of O.Ps. is not binding. The learned counsel then referred Ex.OP2 and argued that 88 farmers purchased the seeds, except 7/8 complainants no one pointed out deficiency. then pointed out the university rules relating to the agricultural produce of PR 126 30 quintals yield per acre in a good quality of land and also argued and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi and as per guidelines of the university, the produce of the seed is based upon the various factors like irrigation, climate, quality of land etc. The learned counsel then referred the documents Ex.OP1/1 to OP1/85 vide which the seed PR 126 was sold to various other farmers and lastly referred to the office report to Director Seeds dated 13.9.2019, which was prepared after inspection of the complainant land and after uprooting the plants. Then in the light of said report, prayed no deficiency stands established, complainant counsel argued beyond the pleadings and the complaint is without merit. Same be dismissed with costs. 

9.    After touching the facts on merit, the forum is to appreciate whether the complainant is the consumer or not. Complainant (Harpreet Singh) pleaded in his complaint that he purchased seeds of PR 126 from the O.P. No.1, which was supplied through O.Ps. No.2 & 3 i.e. in the month of May 2018. It was sown in the fields on 22.6.2018 in 6.5 acres. Contesting O.Ps.in reply not denied the sale/purchase of the seeds PR 126. When O.Ps. did not deny then there is no need to go in detail relating to the documents on file by both the parties. Moreso, the complainant reported the matter qua the mixing of seeds and O.Ps. visited and after inspection of the spot and submitted the report. In this way, the complainant is the consumer and complaint is maintainable.

10.  In first part of the arguments, the complainant counsel pleaded that the seeds PR 126 was sold in the month of May 2018 but at the time of sale, sale price was received but no bill was issued. When complainant found mixing of seeds, he reported the matter to the Agriculture Development Officer and then approached the O.Ps. qua the issuance of the receipts relating to the sale of the seeds. Initially the O.Ps. refused to issue the bill and later on issued the bills which are not relating to the actual date of sale. O.Ps. counsel to meet out this arguments of the complainant prayed that the fact which is not pleaded in the complaint, cannot be agitated in arguments. The forum has gone through the file and in complaint nowhere mentioned qua the non issuance of the receipts of purchase but at the same time, the forum has gone through the documents relied upon by the O.P. (University) that are Ex.OP6 to Ex.OP26 and in all the said receipts there is date mentioned relating to May 2018. Complainant relied upon news paper cutting which shows farmers protested against the University, but keeping in view the facts as the complainant did not plead any allegations against the O.Ps. qua the non issuance of the receipts does not favour  the complaint version. So in the absence of the pleadings, no finding can be given against the University and in favour of the complainant.

11.  Coming to the next aspect of the complaint that is relating to the seed quantity purchased by the complainant. Complainant pleaded purchase of 24 KG seeds and it was sown in 6.5 acre, the university guide lines goes contrary to this. It is the recommendations of the university that seed per acre is required 8 Kg. So, this is one of the lapse on the part of the farmer (Complainant).

12.  Complainant has relied upon the report of Agriculture Officer dated 21.09.2018 Ex.C2, who submitted the report that after inspection of the field, he found loss to the tune of Rs.5500/- per acre and complainant also placed on file, photocopy of the application Ex.C1. Agriculture Officer having office at Morinda, Rupnagar and land of complainant is also situated in the same Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, Morinda but neither the complainant nor the Agriculture Officer called the representative of the University at the time of inspection. On this point, O.Ps. counsel relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, order dated 17.5.2013 in Revision Petition No.506 of 2013, titled as Banta Ram Vs Jai Bharat Beej Company. Hon'ble National Commission, has held that report of Agriculture Department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection. Neither in pleading nor in evidence ever pleaded that complainant or the Agriculture Officer ever asked the representative of the O.P (University) to come at the spot. So, solely relying upon the report of Agriculture Officer is not proper. Moreso, the complainant pleaded the loss but no document has been placed on file qua the actual produce sold in the market i.e. form J which is issued by the Commission Agent. While granting the relief, the forum required documentary proof qua the correct loss and then also to appreciate what are the reasons of the loss because the Hon'ble National Commission, in the above order also held that on the directions of the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department team was formed which inspected the field and on inspection 32% to 35% germination have taken place. If defect in seed is proved then only the producer can be held responsible. Further laid down the laws that produce of the crop also depends upon the irrigation, quality of land, weather and soil, if these things support the farmer then produce will be on the higher side. If the weather is not proper, lack of irrigation and the soil is of not good nature then the produce will be on the lower side. Complainant placed on the file Jamabandi for the year 2013-14 and land is irrigated with the water of tube well. The land which is irrigated through the water of canal is considered of more good quality in comparison to the tube well irrigation.

13.  O.Ps. placed on file, Ex.OP5 i.e. the guidelines and PR 126 (2018) is having the height 102 Cm, average produce 30 quintals per acre and duration is 123 days then it has further given the principles of good produce i.e. temperature, moisture, lack of sunrays, water and soil. O.Ps. also placed on file, some documents Ex.OP27 to Ex.OP84 and through these documents tried to prove the sale of the seeds to the different farmers. By referring to these documents, O.Ps. counsel on behalf of University, prayed that lots of seeds were prepared and sold in the open market. No other farmer who purchased the seeds has come forward leveling the allegations of mixing the seeds except the farmers of Morinda.

14.  Complainant counsel relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in First Appeal No.1451 of 2011, decided on 01.04.2015, titled as Rajinder Singh Vs Hariali Kissan Bajar, the Hon'ble State Commission has held that "Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 13(1) (c) Defective Seeds- Probative Value of the report of the Agriculture Development Officer- He is an official witness, who is disinterested person and did not have moved to submit a distorted report to help one party- He inspected the spot in his official capacity and found that different varieties of seeds were the villain of the piece, which were found on account of mixed seeds sold to the complainant- Not find any ground to discard the disinterested report of the Agriculture Officer who is a public servant.

       The forum has gone through the authorities and the law laid down that Probative Value of the report of Agriculture Development Officer who is an official witness, he has submitted his report and cannot be of help to any of the parties. He inspected the spot in official capacity and found mixing of seeds sold by the complainant but to rebut this authority, O.Ps. university has placed on file the report of the expert doctors that when in the presence of the complainant plants were uprooted after check up in the laboratory and gave the conclusion against the complainant then why the complainant firstly did not rebut the said report and not place on file any document to contradict the report. So on the basis of the authority, no benefit can be extended in favour of the complainant. The counsel has also relied upon the guide lines relating to the storing of seeds sample rule 13 (3) which states as under:-

  "Every person selling, keeping the sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind of variety under Section 7, shall keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of seed sold except that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of. The sample of seed kept as part of the complete record shall be as large as the size notified in the official Gazzette. This sample, if required to be tested, shall be tested only for determining the purity".

But the O.Ps. counsel relied upon the law laid down by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi order dated 17.5.2013 and law is laid down as under:-

"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1) (f), 2(1) (g), 13(1) (c)

and 21(b)- Purchase of agriculture seeds- Defects found - Germination not took place as per assurance- Deficiency in service- Dismissal of complaint and appeal Challenged by revision - Held, low germination may be due to reasons totally external to quality of seeds - Facts shows that petitioner had neither got seed tested from any laboratory nor filed application for getting read tested as required under provisions of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act, 1986".  O.Ps. counsel also relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana order dated 15.6.1993. In both the authorizes, the law is that until and unless the seed tested report from any laboratory is not on the file  then no finding can be against the manufacturer or seller of the seed.

15.      After appreciating the totality of the documents discussed above, the forum has come to the conclusion that complainant remains unsuccessful in proving deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. because firstly less seeds were sown for 6.5 acres, no laboratory report is placed on the file and he also did not request to this Forum for laboratory test. Rather at the time of evidence, O.Ps. University brought unpacked parcel of PR 126 for testing but complainant did not request to send the sample for laboratory test. Thirdly, no. J form qua the actual loss or produce of the farmer issued by the Commission Agent was produced to show the actual loss. Agriculture produce depends upon various factors like quality of land, temperature, water, irrigation, fertigation, herbicides and soil etc. So no responsibility can be fastened upon the O.Ps and the complaint is without merit.

16.      In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost.  

17.      The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.31.05.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER