Haryana

Jind

CC/15/132

Sandeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shakti Vardhak Hybird Seeds Op 1 And M/S Ram Nartyan Sunil Kumar OP2 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Parveen Kumar

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 147 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 15.10.2015
   Date of final order: 14.6.2016

Sandeep s/o Tek Chand r/o village Dumerkha Kalan, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Tilak Bazar, Hissar-125001.
M/s Ram Narayan Sunil Kumar Purani Anaz Mandi Gate, Narwana-126116.
                                                         …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    
    
Present: Sh. Parveen Kumar, Adv. for complainant.
             Sh. Rajnish Garg Adv. for opposite parties.
         
ORDER:
            The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant is agriculturist by profession and had purchased 15 Kg of Pusa 1121 rice seeds vide cash memo No.11747 dated 26.5.2015 and sowed the same in his 4 acres of his agriculture land. The complainant cultivated 4 acres of land for sowing the rice seeds and spent huge money.The result of the sown crop was not as per 
        Sandeep Vs. Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds etc.
                    …2…
specifications of Pusa 1121. Complainant preferred an application to the S.D.O. Agriculture Department, Narwana who constituted a Committee and the said committee visited the fields of complainant on 27.8.2015 and observed that the variety in the field does not resemble with pusa 1121 based on the field experience.  Had the quality of Pusa 1121 been original than complainant must have cultivated rice produce of more than Rs.2,80,000/- from his 4 acres of agricultural land. It is alleged that on 16.9.2015 Sh. Parveen Kumar Adv. for the complainant sent a copy of inspection report of the field of complainant conducted by S.D.A.O. Narwana through e-mail to opposite party No.1. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  pay a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as well as to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have  put in appearance and filed the  written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; the complainant has got no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is false and frivolous.  On merits, it is contended that the complainant has filed this complaint by making conspiracy with the Agriculture Department to defame the opposite parties and complainant has 
        Sandeep Vs. Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds etc.
                    …3…
not disclosed about the time of sowing the seeds. It is also alleged that the Committee framed by Agriculture Department  has violated the terms and conditions of the Govt. Circular No.52-70/TA(SS) dated 3.1.2002  wherein it is specifically mentioned that one representative of the seed company is mandatory to participate during the inspection of the field of the complainant. The report made by the Agriculture Department is false and manipulated one. In that report it has been observed that the variety in the field does not resemble with Pusa1121. It is further contended that the sample of the seed has not been sent to any laboratory for testing under Section 13 (1) (c ) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is also violation of rules on the part of complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for.  
3.    In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of cash memo Ex. C-2, copy of letter dated 25.8.2015 Ex. C-3, copy of  inspection report dated 4.9.2015 Ex. C-4, copy of legal notice dated 9.9.2015 Ex. C-5, postal receipts Ex. C-6 and Ex. C-7, letter dated 16.9.2015 Ex. C-8, envelope Ex. C-9, A.D. Ex. C-10, copy of reply of letter dated 16.9.2015 Ex. C-11, copy of letter Ex. C-12 and copy of jamabandi Ex. C-13 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of Sh. Ved 
        Sandeep Vs. Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds etc.
                    …4…
Parkash Arya, M.D. Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Sh. Paramjit Singh  Quality Control Officer, Ex. OP-2, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex. OP-3, copy of test report Ex. OP-4, copies of letter dated 24.6.2013 Ex. OP-5 and Ex. OP-6, copy of cash memo Ex. OP-7, affidavit of Sh. Dalbir Ex. OP-8, copy of cash memo Ex. OP-9, affidavit of Sh. Sunil Kumar Ex. OP-10, copy of cash memo Ex. OP-11, affidavit of Dilbag Singh Ex. OP-12 and copy of cash memo Ex. OP-13 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The Ld. counsel of complainant argued that the variety of the seeds sown by the complainant was of Pusa 1121 but of poor quality and thereby  the complainant suffered a huge loss. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel of opposite parties argued that the test report of the Agriculture Department, Haryana is having no value in the eyes of law because they have not joined the representative of the opposite parties at the time of inspection nor they have send any notice before inspection of the field of the complainant. It is clear cut violation of rules/direction issued by the Govt. 
5.    The controversy between the parties is that whether the inspection report of Agriculture Committee is admissible under the law or not. We have perused the inspection report Ex. C-4 given by the Committee consisting of three members of Agricultural Department namely Dr. Mewa Singh SMS (agro 
        Sandeep Vs. Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds etc.
                    …5…
Narwana) Dr. Rameshwar Sheokand, ADO Dhanori and Dr. Shyam Lal Durjanpur. At the time of inspection field of the complainant that  he has sown paddy crop in four acres and they have observed that variety in the field does not  resemble with Pusa 1121 based on the field experience but the committee has not given that which variety is sown in the field. Whereas the Ld. counsel of complainant argued that the variety is pusa 1121 but of poor quality. The version of the complainant is that the report given by the committee is authentic one. On the other hand, the version of the opposite parties that the report is not believable because the committee has violated the instructions of the Govt. which was issued by the Govt. of Haryana through letter Ex. OP-3 wherein it is clearly directed by the Govt. to all the Agriculture Officers Scientists that before inspection/preparing the report it is mandatory to accompany the representative of the manufacturer/ dealer of the seeds. In the present case, the Committee did not accompany the dealer/manufacturer of the seed. Besides this, the opposite parties have also  produced the affidavit  along with bill of three agriculturists Ex. OP-8 to Ex. OP-13, who have  also purchased the same variety and company  of seed from  opposite party No.1 and sown the same variety of seeds in their field. These farmers also stated in their affidavit that the quality of the seed Pusa 1121 is of good quality and they are fully satisfied from its 
        Sandeep Vs. Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds etc.
                    …6…
yield. Apart this  the opposite parties also argued that the complainant has not complied with the provision of  section 13 ( 1) ( c) of the Consumer Protection Act as the sample of the seeds should have been got tested from some authorized laboratory. In the present case, the complainant has not got its seeds tested from any laboratory. Besides this the Inspection report given by the Agriculture Department is not helpful to the complainant as committee has  observed that variety in the field does not resemble with pusa 1121 but they have not given which type of the variety of paddy  was sown in the field. 
6.    Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the complainant has not been able to prove his case and there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. So this Forum has no hesitation to dismiss the complaint and hence the complaint is dismissed. The parties will bear their own litigation expenses.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 14.6.2016
                                 President,
          Member        Member     District Consumer Disputes                                   Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

        Sandeep Vs. Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds etc.
                    

Present: Sh. Parveen Kumar, Adv. for complainant.
             Sh. Rajnish Garg Adv. for opposite parties.

            Remaining arguments heard. To come up on 14.6.2016 for orders. 
                                President,
        Member       Member                DCDRF, Jind
                                  8.6.2016

Present: Sh. Parveen Kumar, Adv. for complainant.
             Sh. Rajnish Garg Adv. for opposite parties.

             Order announced, vide our separate order of even date. The complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                President,
    Member              Member                DCDRF, Jind
                                14.6.2016