Haryana

Kurukshetra

179/2017

Jasbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sagar Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Sahab Singh

07 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 179 of 2017.

Date of instt. 25.08.2017. 

                                                                         Date of Decision: 07.03.2019.

 

Jasbir Singh son of Sh. Maya Ram, resident of village Ajrani, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. Sagar Traders, near Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, New Grain Market, Market Road, Shahabad (M), Distt. Kurukshetra, through its Prop. Harish Kumar Singhal.

 

2. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, Survey No.69, Kandlakoya Gundlapochampally village Machhal Mandal, Distt. Ranga Reddy (Telangana) India, through its Managing Director.

 

..………Opposite parties.

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Sh. S.S.Saini, Advocate for complainant.      

 Sh. Gur Lal, Advocate for opposite parties.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Jasbir Singh against Sagar Traders & another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant has taken land measuring 75 Kanals 11 Marlas on lease comprised in Khewat No.1 min, khatoni no.15, khasra no.164 (8-16), 176(10-4), 177 (9-10), 178 (9-0), 179 (8-0), 180 min (5-19), 200 (8-0), 201 (8-0), 202 (7-14) situated at village Ajrani, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra from Salinder Singh and Jarnail Singh residents of village Dheru Majra (Umri), Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra for the year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 at the rate of Rs.46,000/- per acre per year. That the complainant purchased two bags of sunflower seed vide receipt No.6104 dated 22.2.2017 for a sum of Rs.1960/- from op no.1 and also purchased one more bag of sunflower seed on the next day i.e. 23.2.2017, but no receipt for this bag has been given on the pretext that the same will be supplied later on because the receipt book is complete. It is further alleged that complainant prepared the land measuring 31 kanals 9 marlas for sowing the sunflower crop and ploughed the same by his own tractor thrice and then after irrigating the said land again ploughed the land twice by spending Rs.5000/- and also put the fertilizer costing Rs.2500/- in the same and sown the sunflower seed on small mends in the said land as per the instructions and specification of the op no.1. It is further allged that when the crop was ripened, it was found that some of the flowers (Ear Head) remained small in size having less grains than the specification and some flowers were normal in size but they remained at least half without seeds. That complainant approached op no.1 and requested him to visit the fields but he refused in this regard. Then complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra who deputed a team of expert to visit the spot and to report about the existing condition of the crop. Accordingly the said team of experts visited the fields of complainant on 19.6.2017 and after verification it was found that 30% flowers were of normal size and 70% flowers were of small size i.e. not of normal size and were also found 20%/25% less in grains/seeds than the specification. In this manner, the complainant has suffered a huge loss because of supply of sub standard/ adulterated seed by op no.1. As such the complainant is entitled to Rs.1,12,000/- in total because of less yield of his crop. That the complainant approached op no.1 time and again and requested to pay the said amount, but he did not pay any heed. Hence, this complaint.

2.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.2 is a well reputed company and is known for producing the seed of best quality. The present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not filed any evidence to prove that the seed was defective. The alleged inspection report does not even whisper anything about any defect in the seed in question. This report only speaks that there was any loss to the crop and no where discloses that there was any defect in the seed. Further, this report was procured by complainant at the back of the answering ops. No prior notice was given to the ops before inspection of the field. It is further submitted that complainant has not mentioned about the cultivation practice adopted by him for better growth of crop i.e. application of the fertilizers, seed rate applied, sowing season, environmental conditions, sufficient applicability of water etc. It is further submitted that there is no compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further submitted that simply because he did not receive the yield as per the expectation, it cannot be said that the seed sown was not of good quality or there was mixing of any inferior seed. It is also submitted that proper growth depends upon various factors. All other contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW3/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A.

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

5.             Learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant has taken the land measuring 75 kanals 11 marlas on lease from Salinder Singh and Jarnail Singh. Ex.CW2/A is affidavit of Salinder Singh and Jarnail Singh and Ex.C3 is lease document. The next point raised by complainant’s counsel is that complainant has purchased two bags of seed of sunflower from op no.1 on 22.2.2017. The receipt is Ex.C4. He again purchased one bag of sunflower seed on next day but op no.1 has not given receipt of that bag on that day. After purchase of the seed, the complainant has sown said seed in his field and at the time of ripening, it was found that some flowers were not grown properly. The complainant gave application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra to inspect his fields and Deputy Director Agriculture appointed three members to inspect the field of complainant and they gave report Ex.C6/A which shows that 70% seed is of different variety. It is also argued by complainant’s counsel that inspecting team gave report only regarding two acres of land and assessed 70% loss to the complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has also cited cases titled as M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. 2012 (1) Apex Court Judgments 265 (SC), M/s Maharasthra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & Ors. 1998 (6) SCC 738 (SC), M/s Dharampal & Sons & others vs. Som Prakash 2014 (3) CLT 187 (NC),  National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy I (2004) CPJ 122 (NC) and decision of our Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as M/s Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat Ram and others, 2014 (1) CLT 624.

6.             Learned counsel for ops argued that complainant has no locus standi to file this case because he is not owner of that land. Moreover girdawari which is Ex.C2 also does not show name of complainant. The production of sunflower crop is based on land quality, procedure of cultivation and weather also. The seed of ops is of very good quality and there is no complaint from other persons regarding the defective seed. The next point raised by ld. Counsel for ops is that no notice has been given by the complainant or inspecting team at the time of inspection. So this report is forged one. The next point raised by ops’ counsel is that no procedure has been followed in this case as mentioned in Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and have perused the case file and have also gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for complainant.

8.             The complainant in order to prove his plea that he has taken land measuring 75 kanals 11 marlas on lease from Salinder Singh and Jarnail Singh has furnished affidavit of said Salinder Singh and Jarnail Singh as Ex.CW2/A in which they have supported the version of complainant.  Further the complainant has also placed on file affidavit of one Rajender Kumar Panch of Gram Panchayat village Ajrani as Ex.CW3/A in which he has also corroborated the version of the complainant about taking of land by complainant on lease basis. Though complainant has alleged that he has sown seed of sunflower in four acres of land but from the inspection report Ex.C6/A it is evident that the inspecting team has mentioned that farmer disclosed that he has sown sunflower seed in three acres of land but in the bill two bags of two kilogram each have been shown as purchased by him and the inspecting team also inspected two acres of land. Since the inspecting team has categorically mentioned that they inspected two acres of land where crop of sunflower was sown, therefore, we have to see that loss has been caused in two acres of land. The inspecting team in this regard has mentioned that 70% seed was of different variety than the variety of NSFH-36. Therefore, the version of the complainant that 70% loss of crop has been caused to the complainant in two acres of land is to be believed. The contention of learned counsel for the ops that representative of the ops were not joined at the time of inspection is repelled because our Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as M/s Shakti Vardhan Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat Ram & others (supra) has held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (g)- Defective seeds (Bajra)- Effect of non-joining seed dealer in field inspection- Bajra seed found defective having been mixed with some other variety and not pure- Plea of OP that the seed supplied was tested and passed by the Seed Certification Agency and field not inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana- Dealer of seed not joined by the experts during the inspection of fields of complainant- Contention repelled- Held- It was the duty of the officials of Agriculture Department to get the field inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana- The team not being constituted as per the letter of the Dirtector of Agriculture and not associating the dealer of the seed, was not the fault of the farmer because he was not supposed to be aware that the representative of the company was to be associated in the team- It was for the officials of Agriculture Department to call the representatives of the company- It was not the fault of the farmer at all, for which he would not be allowed to suffer-Appeal dismissed.

9.             Now we assess the loss caused to the complainant in two acres of land. As mentioned above, the inspecting team has mentioned that 70% flowers of the crop were of different variety and as such the complainant has suffered loss of 70% of sunflower crop. Though, the complainant has alleged loss of Rs.1,12,000/- in four acres of land but as mentioned above it is proved that inspecting team found sunflower crop in two acres of land and therefore, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation in lump sum for loss in two acres of land.

10.            Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony including litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.: 7.3.2019 

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Neelam)           (Sunil Mohan Trikha)        

                Member                     Member