THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 04 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 01.01.2012.
Date of Decision: -25.01.2017.
Mange Ram son of Balbir, resident of village Gurera, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Sanjay Seeds Corporation near Sr. Sec. School, Siwani Mandi, District Bhiwani through its Proprietor.
- Manager, State Farms Corporation of India Ltd. Jaipur Regd. Office, Farm Bhawan, 14-15, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
- National Seed Corporation Ltd. (NSC) (A Govt. of India Undertaking) Beej Bhawan PUSA Complex, New Delhi-110012 through its Deputy General Manager (Farm) Central State Farm, Hisar a unit of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (NSC) 10th K.M. Stone, Sirsa Road, Hisar.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Present:- Shri Satpal Sihag, Advocate for complainant
Shri C.D. Singla, Advocate for Ops no. 1.
Shri Ajay Allawadi, Advocate for OP no. 2 & 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased 8 packets of Guwar Seeds named HG-365 and 3 packets Bajra Seeds from OP no. 1 on 13.06.2011. It s alleged that he paid Rs. 2240/- to the OP no. 1 and the OP no. 1 issued a bill no. 5759 dated 13.06.2011. It is alleged that he had sown the Guwar seeds in his field on 15.06.2011 in 5 acres land but no flowers and fruits were developed on the plants & the heights of the plants became 5 feets. It is alleged that he made a complaint to Agriculture Development Officer, Gurera for checking the Guwar crops and the Agriculture Development Officer, Gurera sent the report to Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Siwani on 29.09.2011 and as per report the Guwar Crops of the complainant was not the variety of HG-365 and the plants of the Guwar crops were without fruits. It is alleged that the Ops supplied defective seeds to the complainant and he has not received any yield from the Guwar crops and the loss of the crops was 100%. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent is retailer in seeds of reputed manufacturing companies which are renowned in India. It is submitted that the answering respondent bought the seed in question from the M/s Sonu Beej Bhandar who had purchased the same from M/s Jagdish Store, Tilak Bazar, Hisar in sealed packets and kept the same in the same condition in which it was acquired by him, a duly licensed concern. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no. 2 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant has brought out his case that he purchased the subjected seeds from OP no. 1, who is not the authorized dealer of answering respondent. It is submitted that the complainant has never made any complaint to answering respondent nor made any complaint to its local office. It is submitted that the complainant wants to blackmail the answering respondent by spoiling its name as bad producer of the seeds just to get compensation. It is submitted that there is no documentary proof in the complaint as well as on record which may prove that seed in question was actually sown and planted by the complainant. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5 On the other hand, counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6 alongwith supporting affidavit
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant purchased the Guwar seed variety HG-365 from OP no. 1. The quality of seed was poor. He submitted that no proper yield was given by the seed, which was purchased by the complainant from OP no. 1. He referred the Khasra Girdawari Annexure C-2 and Farad Jamabandi Annexure C-3. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the Agriculture Officer submitted his report to the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Siwani, which is Annexure C-4. In view of said report, the seed supplied by the Ops was of poor quality. Hence they are liable to pay the compensation.
8. Learned counsels for OPs reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. The seed in question was certified seed manufactured by the State Corporation of India Limited a Government of India Undertaking. They submitted that there is no complaint of the germination of the seed in question. The yield depends on the condition of soil, irrigation, moisture content in the air, rain fall and use of pesticides etc. They submitted that the Rajasthan State Seed and organic Production Certification Agency Jaipur, Seed Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture Shri Ganga Nagar Rajasthan has issued certificate-11 under Section 9 of the Seed Act 1946, dated 11.04.2011 confirmed the standard prescribed for certification under the seed act. He further submitted that the inquiry report dated 29.09.2011 submitted by the Agriculture Development Officer, the procedure and instructions of Government of Haryana, issued vide memo No. 52- were not followed. Hence the report is not binding on the Ops. Learned counsels for the Ops contended that the inquiry report does not mention that the seed was of poor quality. The counsel for the Ops produced the copy of certificate-11 and Seed Testing Report. The counsel for the Ops stressed that the complainant has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act. The counsels for the Ops relied upon the following judgments in support of their contention:-
I Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Versus Sadhu & Another in Civil Appeal No. 1308 of 2005 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
II Mahyco Seeds Company Ltd. Versus Basappa Channappa Mooki and Others with Civil Appeals Nos. 2425, 2426, 2427 of 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 2428 of 2008 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
III Indian Farmers Fertilizers and another Versus Sh. Bhup Singh in Revision Petition No. 2144 of 2014 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
IV Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited Versus Gadesula Harinath & others 2014 (2) CLT 103.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The inquiry report dated 29.09.2011 submitted by the Agriculture Development Officer, disclose about the quality of seed. The Agriculture Development Officer, has not mentioned about issue of notice to the Ops that is the seller and producer of seed regarding the inspection of the field of the complainant. The procedure laid down by the Government of Haryana vide Memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002 has not been followed in this case to examine the crops of the complainant. As per the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has not taken any step to procure the analysis of the seed to prove the quality of the seed. On the other hand the Ops have produced copy of certificate-11 and Seed Testing Report. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the seed supplied by the Ops was of poor quality. Considering the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:25 .01.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member.
