Haryana

Ambala

CC/55/2017

Ravinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab Agro Care - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Kumar

01 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 55 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 27.02.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 01.05.2018

 

Ravinder Singh son of Shri Tara Singh resident of village Korwa Khurd, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

                                         Versus

 

1. Punjab Agro Care 10-A, Shastri Colony, G.T.Road, Ambala Cantt 133001, through its Prop./Partner/ Authorized signatory.

 

2.  Bayer Crop Science Ltd. (North Zone), Ist Floor Delta Square Sector-25 M.G.Road, Gurgaon-122002, through its Manager/ Authorized signatory.

  

….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.Sandeep Kumar, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.Vijay Chauhan, counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh.Sunny Sharma, counsel for OP No.2.

         

 

ORDER:

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased paddy seeds 6444 3 KG x 4 packet and 850 3 KG x 2 packet from the OP No.1 vide bill No.16620 dated 11.05.2016 valuing Rs.4780/-  and sown the same in his three acres of land. In the last week of August 2016, the complainant noticed different types of paddy plants; therefore, he brought this fact to Krishi Development Officer Nariangarh on 29.08.2016 to inspect the paddy crop at the spot who after visiting the spot reported about mixed quality of seeds have been sold to the complainant due to this some seeds have been ripped and seed No. 6444 of bayer would take more time to ripe. The complainant requested the OPs to make the payment of compensation and also got served legal notice upon them but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the present complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C5.

2.                Upon notice OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken many preliminary objections such as maintainability and   concealments of material facts etc. The complainant has filed the present complaint on false grounds because the paddy seeds were purchased by him with his sweet will. The Op No.1 had supplied the seeds of two types (i) for long term and (ii) for short term and it seems that the complainant had mixed the seeds and the present complaint has been filed to usurp the  compensation amount as the loss whatsoever suffered by the complainant is due to his own fault. The reply to the legal notice has also been given. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that the report of Agriculture Team is vague because it does not bear any khasra number etc. and the inspection has been done in its absence.  The Op No.2 is not aware whether the complainant had purchased the seeds from Op No.1 or not. The story regarding paddy plants is self contradictory because the difference in plants can easily noticed at the time growing of nursery whether there is any sort of mixing in the seeds or not.  In order to get good crop many factors such as quality of soil, water source, whether the farmer has taken proper care and efforts at particular stage, utilization of fertilizer and pesticides etc.play important role and it cannot be attributed to the quality of seeds only. The only survey and report of agriculture officer is not sufficient to hold that the seeds were defective. Every batch of each and every product produced by the OP No.2 is released for dispatch only after it meets the internal quality parameters set by the company and no product which does not meet the quality specification, is cleared from the factory. The Op No.2 is not responsible for any act of negligence on the part of OP No.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2. Objections about maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction and concealment of material facts have been taken. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RB and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R10.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly the complainant has purchased the paddy seeds from OP No.1 (6444 3 KG x 4 packet and 850 3 KG x 2 packet) vide bill No.16620 dated 11.05.2016 valuing Rs.4780/- Annexure C2. In the report Annexure C1 it has been mentioned that the complainant had purchased seed of variety 5444 of Bayer company having lot No.71680475 and on randomly checking it was found that 10/12 % plants were of other seeds and rest of the plants were of seed variety 6444 of Bayer company and would take much time in ripping.  The Ops have produced the lab report Annexure R5 wherein it has been mentioned that the batch No.71680475 is having germination percentage of 92 % with purity analysis 99 P.S. and 1 LM. Perusal of report Annexure C1 reveals that it does not bear the khasra number of the land belonging to the complainant on which he allegedly sown the seeds after its purchase from the Op No.1. The complainant has not produced any revenue record on the case file to show prove his ownership on the land on which the alleged seeds were sown.  It is strange that the complainant himself had purchase two type of seeds and in whole of the proceedings he has not mentioned that what has been the fate of other seeds if he has sown only variety 6444 of seeds in his fields. The Op No.1 in its reply in para No.4 has specifically mentioned that the seeds allegedly purchased by the complainant were of two types and one was for long term and other one was for short term.  It is a matter of common knowledge that a farmer can easily reach at a conclusion about the mixing of seeds on growing of nursery but in the present case the complainant did not approach the OPs on growing of nursery rather he kept on waiting for ripping the crop for the reasons best known to it without approaching the OPs at early stage.  The report Annexure C1 on the basis of which the whole case of complainant stands is not helpful to his case and if the report of committee of Agriculture Officers Annexure C1 is vanished then there remains nothing on the case file. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant titled as National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Malda @ Mal Krishan  IV (2015) CPJ 54 (NC)  is not helpful to the case of the complainant and is being distinguished.  

6.                          Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case the complainant has not been able to prove his case against the OPs by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 01.05.2018                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member