Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/718/2013

Avtar Singh S/o Tarlok Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saraswati Fertilizers - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Chhiber

14 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT AJGADHRI.

 

                                                                        Consumer Complaint No.718/2013.

                                                                        Date of Institution:27.9.2013.

                                                                        Date of Decision:14.9.2017.

 

Avtar Singh son of Sh.Tarlok Singh, age 40 years of village Nagala Jagir, tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                …complainant.

 

                                                Vs.

 

1. Saraswati Fertilizers Talakaur road, Thana Chhappar Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its proprietor.
2. Harbir Agrotech Private Limited, corporate office SCF 56-57, 1^st floor, Main Market, Sector-6, Karnal Haryana through its Managing Director.

…Respondents.

 

                                                Complaint under section 12 of the

                                                Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:        SH.SATPAL………..PRESIDENT,

                        SH.S.C.SHARMA,    MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh.Mohit Chhibber, Adv. For complainant.

               Sh.Sanjeev Gupta, Adv. For Ops.

 

ORDER:         (SH.STAPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondents(hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as Ops).

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one bag of seed bearing its variety “Harbir Sanam 09 bearing batch No.Oct.12-7/282-115 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.950/- vide bill no.5351, dated 13.5.2013.  The above said Hybrid Seed bearing its variety No.2355+Lot No.3271 has been manufactured by the Op NO.2.  At the time of purchase of seed the OP No.1 assured the complainant that the seed has been manufactured by the reputed company and it will give satisfactory results to the complainant and in case of any defect, the Op No.2 would pay the compensation to the complainant after assessing the loss of crop.  The complainant planted the aforesaid seed in his fields and when the above said crop was going to ripen, the complainant found that few plant of paddy crop are ready for ripen and other most of plants of paddy crop were not ready for ripening and there was a mixture of other seeds.  Due to the mixture of other seeds in the seed supplied by the Ops and due to the deficiency and negligent act of the Ops, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.50,000/-.  The complainant reported the matter to the OP No.1 who asked to wait for some time on the excuse that due to summer or very hot season, all the crops especially the crop of the paddy has been delayed but even thereafter the crop of paddy remained the same and did not grow up.  After few days the employee of Op No.2 and Op No.1 visited the fields of the complainant and assured to compensate the complainant.  After a few days the complainant requested the Ops several times to pay the compensation.  Firstly they put of the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to pay any compensation, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and thus prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss caused to the complainant due to supply of defective seed by the Ops and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as Rs.11,000/- as cost of proceedings. 

3.                     Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections that according to section 13(1) ( C) of the Consumer Protection Act, where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods which can not be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate” it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defects and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty five days of the receipt of reference or within such a extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.  But in this complaint no such type of application has been filed by the complainant till today.  If the complainant who did not have any sample of the product then he could also file the application before the Hon’ble Forum for direction to the OP, to submit the sample for re-testing the same.  The OP would have arranged the sample for re-testing.  Further, it is also mentioned that the compliance of provisions of section 13 (1) ( c) is mandatory and without this no finding can be given.  M/s Shetkari Sehkari Sangh vs. M/s Panse Pvt. Ltd. 1993 (1) CPA Page 47 (NC), it has been held that, “Sample not analysed-Complaint was dismissed as provision of section 13(1) ( c) which are mandatory, were not complied with.  Similarly, in case titled as Rajinder Singhv s. Varinder Singh 1994 (2) CPJ page 127 Haryana, held that, “compliant regarding defect in insecticide no sample was taken and chemical analysis was not done complaint was dismissed. Further draw the attention of this Forum towards authority in case titled as Northern Mineral vs. Kashi Ram 1997 3 CPJ P.541.  In the absence of laboratory test or analysis no finding can be given about standard of medicine as held in case Chander Mohan Kaura vs. M/s Mirck India Ltd. 1998 (2) CPJ 329 Punjab.  According to rule 23-A (amended) of the Seeds Rules, 1974 if a farmer has lodged a complaint in writing about the failure of crop due to defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complainant for establishing the source of supplying of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seed Testing Laboratory.  He shall thereupon submit the report of his finding as soon as possible to the competent authority.  In case, the seed inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the quality of seeds, supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standards notified by the Central Government, he shall launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act or these rules.  But, in this complaint no proceedings was launched against the OP regarding the supply of the seeds because the quality of the above said seeds is confirmed to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (A) section 6 of the Seed Act 1966.  A direction was issued by the Director, Agriculture Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Director, Agriculture in the state vide memo No.52-70, dated 3.1.2002 regarding the inspection of farmer fields on receipt of a complaint regarding sale of poor quality seeds, the brief contents of this letter are as under “ It has been reported by the some of seed producing Distributors agent that fields of complainants/farmers are inspected by the office of the agriculture department without associating the representative of concerned seeds.  Sometimes cases in the court of law are decided after taking into consideration reports of these inspections.  Thereafter, it has been decided that fields of the complainants/farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of agriculture department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and report will be submitted to the officer immediately after inspection”; It is further averred that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties; the complainant has raised instricate and complicated question of facts and law.  On merits the plea taken by the complainant has been controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                     To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own ffidavit as annexure CW.1/A, documents such as bill dated 13.5.2013 as annexure C.1 and closed his evidence 

5.                     The counsel for the Ops did not tender any evidence closed his evidence.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.

7.                     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, this fact is admitted that the complainant purchased the paddy seeds from the Op No.1 duly manufactured by the Op No.2.  The only point of controversy between the parties is whether the seeds were defective or not?  The farmer-complainant is duty bound to prove the defect in the seed and the same can be proved by independent report from the laboratory or officers of the department after following proper procedure of the agriculture.  No doubt it is not possible for the farmer to keep any part of seed to file the consumer complaint as pressed by the Ops because they sow the seeds to get benefits from the fields not from companies.  But the burden to prove his case by way of production of expert report on record or/and by getting the seeds or fields inspected from agriculture department vide which defects in the seeds/crops could be established, rests upon the complainant which has not been done in this case by the complainant.   This Forum is aware the law as propounded in the case titled as Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs. Sharab Motirao Kankale & Anr. 2012(2) CPJ, 373: 2012(3) CPR 238: 2012(4)CLT 100 (NC), held that,” Cotton Seeds-Defective Seeds-Compensation-The onus to prove that there is a defect in the seeds is on the complainant-Respondent has not been able to provide any evidence including any expert opinion to support his contention-Order of the State Commission directing the Petitioner to pay Rs.13,000/- as compensation/costs to the respondent held not sustainable and liable to be set aside”.  Hence, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and thus the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

8.                     Resultantly, we find no merits in the complaint of the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  File be consigned to the record-room.

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT.

 

           

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                    (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER.