Haryana

Ambala

CC/97/2014

SUJAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB SEEDS ANDS PESTICIDES - Opp.Party(s)

JASWINDER SINGH

04 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 97 of 2014

                                                          Date of Institution         : 01.04.2014

                                                          Date of decision   : 04.09.2017

          Sujan Singh son of Sh. Naseeb Singh, resident of village Jai Singh Ka      Majra, Sub Tehsil/Block Mastafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

……. Complainant.

1.       Punjab Seeds & Pesticides, Near Anaj Mandi, Barara, District Ambala,   through its proprietor/partner Gurjeet Singh Lamba.

2.       Sonam Seeds Technologies Pvt. Ltd. corporate Office-411-Babu Khan     Estate Basher Bagh, Hyderabad.

                                                                             ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

 

Present:       Sh. Jaswinder Singh, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Mishra, counsel for Ops.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased 4 bags i.e. 12 kg of seeds of paddy (ziri) of Sonam Seeds No.741 and 3 bags i.e. 9 k.g. of Sonam 721 and 5 bags i.e. 25 kg of PR-114 from OP No.1 for sum of Rs.5250/- vide bill No.1386 batch No.7418, 7215 dated 09.05.2010 and same was sown in 4 acres of his agriculture land  but the complainant was surprised to see that the crops of the said seed was worsed and grains of paddy were of different verities.  Thereafter, the complainant met to the OP and made a complaint in respect to the OP but the request of the complainant fell in his deaf ears and is rather threatens the complainant that he would not compensate him and the complainant may report to any authority. Complainant further stated that he reported that matter to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar and requested to inspect the fields/crops of the complainant and on his request, the Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar appointed the Agriculture Officers for the inspect of the fields of the complainant and Inspection had been made on 06.09.2010 whereby they admitted that the crop was very much less and the growth of the plant/crop was also very low and also reported that he complainant has suffered a loss of 70%. Complainant further stated that due to the supply of poor quality of seeds to the complainant by the OPs, the complainant suffered huge loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and contested the present complaint by filing their separate replies.

                   OP No.1 in his written statement submitted that OP No.1 had supplied the seeds of best quality and those seeds were testified by the Laboratory approved by the government of India and OP No.1 sold the same as it is received from the company. So the question of any mixing on the part of OP No.1 does not arise, however, mixing might be result of complainant own wrong while sowing the seeds as well as germination of the seeds depends upon the number of circumstances. OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

                   On the other hand, OP No.2 in his written statement submitted that the OP No.2 had supplied the seeds of best quality and those seeds were testified by the laboratory approved by the Govt. of India and company is responsible for germination and genetic purity as per Seeds Act but the crops yield varies due to climate condition and management practices i.e. fertilizer management and difference of soil, pest and disease management and various agronomic practices. Further submitted that the complainant never approached the OP nor ever intimated the OP No.2 and no notice was ever given to the OP No.2 as well as no spot inspection was made by the OP NO.2 at that time when the Team of Agriculture Department inspected the crops of the complainant. So, OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-3 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed his evidence.            

                   We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. Counsel for complainant argued that the seed in question was mixed with some other varieties and not of the best quality. Report of Agriculture Department (Annexure-2) was relied upon by complainant i.e. “15% crop was ripped and 20% has not been grown up and mixing of the seeds is 35% with another seeds. Counsel for complainant further argued that due to supplying of inferior & mixed quality of seeds, complainant suffered a financially loss and  requested for allowing the present complaint.

                   On the other hand, counsel for OPs has argued that there was no deficiency in seeds and the germination of seeds depends upon the proper ploughing of fields and proper supply of manures and there after proper irrigation as well as climatic conditions prevalent at that time. Counsel for OPs further stressed his arguments on the ground that the report of Agriculture Department has not been carried out in the presence of any person of OPs. Counsel for the OPs has further argued that the Seeds in question have been testified by the Laboratory and same was supplied to the consumer. To prove his version, counsel for OPs has filed sworn affidavit Annexure R-X, Release Report of Research Variety Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-2 in which clearly mentioned that these seeds were testified by the laboratory approved by the Govt. of India, so, question of mixing by the company or deponent does not arise, however mixing might be the result of complainants own wrong while sowing the seeds.

5.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties, there are two points involved in this case:-

                   1.       Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs or                                   not?

                   2.       If deficiency in service on the part of Ops is proved then to                                what extent, the complainant is entitled for compensation?

                             The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased 4 bags i.e. 12 kg of seeds of paddy (ziri) of Sonam Seeds No.741 and 3 bags i.e. 9 k.g. of Sonam 721 and 5 bags i.e. 25 kg of PR-114 from OP No.1 for sum of Rs.5250/- vide bill No.1386 batch No.7418, 7215 dated 09.05.2010 Annexure C-1 and same was sown in 4 acres of his agriculture land. The complainant to prove the factum that whether he has sown the seeds in 4 acre, he has filed his sworn affidavit on record as Annexure C-X and the above said fact has not been rebutted by the Ops and never denied in their written statement, so it is clear that the seeds were sown by the complainant in 4 acres land. We have gone through the report of Agriculture Department “fujh{k.k djus ij izfroxZ ehVj ls ikS/kks dh fxurh esa vkB ,d esa izfr ,dM yxHkx 15 izfr’kr ckfy;ka iddj >qd xbZ gS o yxHkx 20 izfr’kr /kku vHkh fuljus dh voLFkk ij gS vr /kku esa yxHkx 35 izfr’kr vU; fdLeksa ds chtksa dh feykoV ikbZ xbZA ;g cht ladj cht ds ekin.M iqjk ugh djrk D;ksfd ladj cht ,d gh le; ij idrk gS (Uniform Ripening, Synchonistion)A mijksDr [ksr esa ;g ugh ik;k x;kA”.  Even then, it was duty of the OPs to rebut the report of the Agriculture Department for summoning anyone of the inspection team for cross-examination, at the time of leading the evidence. So, report of the Inspection Committee cannot be brushed aside on the contention that seeds not sent for testing and report has been obtained at the back the Ops. Counsel for OPs has taken a plea that the seeds in question were testified by the laboratory approved by the Govt. of India but it is the case of mixing of the seeds instead of defective seeds and it depends on company to mix the seeds with another seeds at any stage. So, Reports of Research Variety Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 are not enough to discard the report of Agriculture Department Haryana. In the present case, the inspection has been done by the Officers of the Department of Agriculture of the State Government who are supposed to be knowledgeable person and expert in the field of agriculture production. At the block level and the sub-block level, departmental officers are posted to see the grievances of the rural people pertaining to that particular department and they are supposed to have basic knowledge of the concerned departmental subjects. As the inspection of crop cannot be made again associating the petitioner and the seed company the report of the officer of the Agriculture becomes an important piece of evidence being the report of an expert. As such, both the Ops are responsible for selling poor/mixed quality seeds to the complainant whereby he has suffered huge loss. Hence, we conclude that OP NO.1 had sold mixed seeds to the complainant which was manufactured by OP No.2. However, there can be no knowledge to OP No.1 for alleged defect as OP No.1 has sold the seeds in the same condition in which condition, he received by him from OP No.2 for selling the same. 

                   We have gone through judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled M/s National Seeds Corporation ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. 2012 RCR Civil Page No.838 “wherein it is held that Section 13-Procedure for trial of complaint- complainant by farmer/growers of seeds supplied by appellants resulting in less field –sample seeds not available with complainants as all seeds purchased were sown-Appellant also not providing sample of seeds sold for analysis-Consumer Forum appointing agriculture experts to ascertain status and cause of failure of crop-Compensation awarded to complainants on basis of report of expert-Procedure adopted by Forum cannot be said to be contrary to Section 13(1) (C)-Order of Forum not liable to be set aside as specious ground that procedure prescribed under Section 13 (1) © had not been followed and the Hon’ble National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Circuit Bench at Pune, Maharashtra) in case titled Prathan Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Amir & Anr. 2008 (iv) CPJ Pg. 119-120 (NC) wherein held that “Section 2(1)(f), 14(I)(d)- Agriculture –Seeds defective-Inspection carried out by Inquiry- Committee- Vast Variance in characteristics of plaints found – complaint allowed by Forum compensation granted - order upheld in appeal-Hence revision- Procedure prescribed under Seeds Act followed –Necessary aside on contention that seeds not sent for testing- Orders of lower for a upheld”. The Hon’ble National Commissioner has recently passed order in case title Shri Ram Bioseed Genetics India Ltd. & anr Vs. Badri Prasad & ors Vol III (2017) CPJ 225 wherein held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1), 2(1) ®, 14(i) (d), 21(b)- Agriculture - Defective Seeds – Loss of Crop - Deficiency in Service – Unfair trade practice – District Forum allowed complaint – State Commission partly allowed appeal – contention, when crop was 2-3 feet high, there was no occasion to send seeds for testing in laboratory as seeds were not available at that time with farmer – Inspecting Officer of State Agriculture Department has given a categorical finding that seeds were defective – As inspection of crop cannot be made again associating petitioner and seed company, report of Officer of Agriculture becomes an important piece of evidence being report of an expert- Inspecting Officer has clearly found out that crop had been damaged due to seed – born infestation as seeds were defective- Deficiency proved- Compensation awarded. The above said judgments M/s National Seeds Corporation ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. and Shri Ram Bioseed Genetics India Ltd. & anr Vs. Badri Prasad & ors Vol III (2017) CPJ 225  as well as Prathan Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Amir & Anr. are fully squarely covered the case of the complainant.

6.                Now coming to the point of compensation, the complainant has claimed lumsum amount as a damages amounting Rs.2,40,000 lakh. Report of Agriculture Department reveals that “15% crop was ripped and 20% was not grown up and there was mixing of other seeds up to 35% with another seeds. The seeds sown by the complainant do not fulfill the criteria as prescribed for Shanker Seeds as it ripe at once (Uniform Ripening, Synchonisation) but the same was not found in the said field”. In view of the above report, there has been loss of 30% yield of the complainant. We presume that the complainant must have taken at least 25 quintal paddy in one acre and value of which may not less than Rs. 1000/- per quintal as per prevailing rate of the Govt. in the year of 2010 of hybrid paddy of such quality. As Such, the complainant has suffered loss of                       Rs. 9250/- per acre, and thus value of 4 acres comes to Rs. 37,000/-. As such we hold that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation to the complainant alongwith cost.

6                 In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and OPs are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of order:-

1. The OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 37,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. If the compliance of the order is made by the OP No.1 then OP No.1 may recover the said amount from the Op No. 2 as manufacturing defect in the seeds solely attributed to OP No.2.
2. Also to pay Rs.3000/- as cost of proceedings.

                   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 :04.09.2017                                               Sd/-   

                                                                                 (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                      Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

                         Sd/-

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member