Haryana

StateCommission

A/234/2015

HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORP. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAGHBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.BADHRAN

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.234 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 02.03.2015

Date of Decision: 21.04.2016

 

1.      Haryana Seeds Development Corporation near Dalamwala Hospital, Safidon Road, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind through its Sales Manager.

2.      Haryana Seeds Development Corporation, Bays NO.3-6, Sector-2, Panchkula through its General Manager.

                                                                             .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Raghbir Singh S/o Sh.Badlu Ram @ Badlu R/o Village Kandela, Tehsil and Distt. Jind.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Ravi Kant proxy counsel for Mr.R.S.Badhran, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr.J.B.Sharma, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased eight bags of 10 KGs each @ Rs.520 per bag of PB-1121 high breed paddy seed vide bill dated 11.05.2013 from Opposite Party (O.P.) No.1.  He had sown seedS in 12 acres, out of which four acres were owned by him and eight acres were taken on lease.  It was assured that yield would  be 25 quintal per acre. The seeds of other variety were mixed in seeds purchased by him.  He approached sale center of O.P.No.2 (appellant No.2) at Jind and requested to visit his fields to see the loss, but, to no use. He complained time and again, but, the same fell on deaf ears. Ultimately he moved an application before Deputy Director, Jind to get his fields inspected. He  constituted a committee of three experts of Agriculture Department to visit the field.  The team went to his fields on 01.10.2013 and reported that there was 13% loss in the crop due to inferior quality of seeds, though he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,16,000/-.  O.Ps. be directed to pay the same besides compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that the seeds were subject to quality analysis and test from agency notified (under the provisions of Seed Act or Seed Rules) by State Government.  The quality is strictly maintained by them.  Each bag was carrying label of producing agency and certification by the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency.  No sub-standard seed was ever sold.  He never informed them about the loss suffered by him.  He did not suffer any loss as alleged by him.  He did not sow the seeds in the fields as alleged by him.  More than 1000 farmers of his village and adjoining villages purchased seed, but, there was no complaint. There was proper germination and the loss could have been due to other reasons.  Neither they were informed about constitution of committee for inspection nor they were supplied copy of the report. When fields were visited in their absence, violating circular issued by Director of Haryana Agriculture vide memo No.52/70-PKL dated 03.01.2002 and instructions issued by Director Extension Education CCS, HAU, Hisar dated 03.01.2002, report dated 01.10.2013 was no report in the eyes of law.  The doctors of team were not having knowledge about the origin of Padmalan/Bikani disease and it’s effect.  Even expert doctor of Agriculture University could not tell about the same at this stage.  It was altogether wrong that seeds of sub- standard were sold to him.  As complicated question was involved, so matter should have been settled by civil court or arbitrator.  Objections about accruing cause of action, jurisdiction of consumer forum etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 02.02.2015 and directed as under:-

“The opposite parties are, therefore, directed to pay a  compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month, failing which the same shall also carry interest 2 9% p./a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 25.11.2013 till its full realization.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal on the ground that learned District Forum has wrongly granted compensation because provisions contained in Section 13 (1) ( c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “District Forum”) were not complied with.  The opinion expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission, as mentioned in grounds of appeal, was not followed.  When sub-standard seeds were not sold, he was not entitled for any compensation.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that from the perusal of report Ex.C-3, it is clear that he suffered loss to the extent of 13% due to foot root (Padmalan/Bakani) disease and this disease was result of faulty seeds. This report was submitted by public servants and cannot be brushed aside lightly.  The O.Ps. have not produced any evidence to controvert this report.  He  cultivated the land as mentioned in copy of jamabandi Ex.C-6 and affidavits of his brothers Ex.C-4 and C-5. There is no ground to disturb the impugned order.  In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Haryana Seeds Development corpn. Ltd. vs sadhu & Anr. II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC) and opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds co. ltd. vs Parchuri Narayana, 1 (2009) CPJ 180 (NC), Mahyco seeds ltd. vs G.Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors. III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC) and Gyan Chandra Sharda Vs. Prabhari Sachiv Kshetriya Sadhan Sahkari Samiti & Ors. III (2009) CPJ 19 (NC).

7.      However there is no dispute as far as opinion expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid case law is concerned, but, the same cannot be of any help to the complainant because before inspecting field, instructions issued by Director Ex.OP-13 and instructions Ex.OP-1 as mentioned above were not complied with.  As per these instructions a notice is must before visiting the field.  As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Indian Farmers fertilizers co-operative Vs. Bhup Singh in revision petition No.2144 of 2014 decided on  09.04.2015 such report cannot be relied upon if notice was not issued to O.P. before visit.  The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-

          “6.     Perusal of inspection report clearly reveals that  inspection was made by a team of B.A.O., S.M.S. (PP) and SDAO whereas, as per circular of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 03.01.2002 fields were to be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK. Admittedly, inspection was not carried out after due notice to representative of OP and Scientist was not called and admittedly, not in their presence.  In such circumstances, inspection report made by some officers of Agriculture Department cannot be acted upon and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were not of standard quality, particularly, when these seeds were certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency.  Learned District Forum and learned State Commission wrongly observed that non formation of team as per circular of director of Agriculture was not fault of the complainant.  At the time of inspection, complainant should have asked the inspecting team to intimate OP as well Scientist for carrying out inspection and as inspection has not been done by the duly constituted committee, no reliance can be placed on this inspection report and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the petitioner.

7.      In R.P.No.1451 of 2011-Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah, P.Sreenivasulu and Sai Agro Agencies it was observed that inspection without notice to OP is against the principles of natural justice and no reliance was placed on inspection report as it was not supplied to the OP to present his view on the report.  He also placed reliance on the judgment of this commission in R.P.No.4280 to 4282 of 2007-Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. Sreenivasa Reddy & Ors. In which it was observed as under:-

“Hon’ble Supreme court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs.Sadhu & Anr. II (2005) SLT 569=11 (2005) CPJ 13 SC=(2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs.Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2428/2008, has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The apex court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant.

8.      In the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that report obtained by the complainant without notice to OP cannot be relied upon and learned District Forum fell in error while holding deficiency in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be allowed.”

8.      In view of the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in aforesaid case law report Ex.C-3 cannot be relied upon.  There is no other evidence about loss alleged to be suffered by complainant.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect.  So impugned order dated 02.02.2015 is set aside. Appeal is allowed and  complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification.

 

April 21st, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.