Haryana

StateCommission

A/1008/2019

HARYANA BEEJ COMPANY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIV KUMAR AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI KANT

05 Aug 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Date of Institution:15.10.2019

                                                         Date of Final Hearing:08.07.2024

                                                     Date of Pronouncement:05.08.2024

 

First Appeal No.901 of 2019

 

Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Parbhati Lal, Resident of Village Khursid Nagar, Block Nangal, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari (Haryana).                    

          .....Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.  
2.  

 

Argued by:-       Mr. S.K. Sharma, counsel for appellant.

None for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rohit Goswami, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

First Appeal No.1008 of 2019

 

Date of Institution:13.11.2019

                                                         Date of Final Hearing:08.07.2024

                                                     Date of Pronouncement:05.08.2024

 

 

Haryana Beej Company, near Bus Stand, Rewari Road, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh. ...Appellant/Dealer

•  
•  
•  

 

Argued by:-       Mr. Ravi Kant, counsel for appellant.

None for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rohit Goswami, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

CORAM:             Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member

                             Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member

 

                                                ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                    In both appeals titled above; legality of order dated 19.09.2019, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Mahendergarh (In short “District Consumer Commission”) has been separately questioned by complainant and dealer of onion seeds. Vide impugned order dated 19.09.2019; complaint of Shiv Kumar-Appellant has been dismissed, simultaneously direction has been issued against Dealer (Haryana Beej Company) to refund cost of onion seeds amounting to Rs.13,300/- to complainant within 30 days and dealer has been granted liberty to recover said amount from OP No.1-Manufacturer.

2.                Earlier, consumer’s complaint No.46 of 2015 was allowed by learned District Consumer Commission-Narnaul vide order dated 23.02.2016. Said order was challenged vide First Appeal No.492 of 2016 by Raja Seeds Cot. Industries (Manufacturer), which was allowed/accepted by this Consumer Commission vide order dated 05.05.2017 and consumer’s complaint had been dismissed by setting aside order dated 23.02.2016. Thereafter, Complainant-Shiv Kumar preferred Revision Petition No.2615 of 2017 in Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-New Delhi, who vide order dated 30.05.2019; has set aside order dated 05.05.2017 of this Consumer Commission as well as order dated 23.02.2016 of learned District Consumer Commission and matter has been remanded back to learned District Consumer Commission to decide consumer’s complaint, afresh, after giving opportunity to parties to lead evidence to prove the quantity of seeds required to be sown in two acres of land in area.

3.                Post remand of matter; learned District Consumer Commission-Mahendergarh at Narnaul has dismissed consumer’s complaint vide impugned order dated 19.09.2019, which has now been questioned in both these appeals filed separately by Complainant-Shiv Kumar, as well as, by Haryana Beej Company, near Bus Stand, Rewari Road-Narnaul (Dealer).

4.                Factual matrix: In his complaint; Complainant-Shiv Kumar has alleged that: he purchased “6 Kgs. Onion Seeds Nasik Dark Colour (N-53)” i.e. 12 packets, each weighing 500 grams, from Haryana Beej Company-Dealer vide Bill No.1024 dated 11.10.2014 for Rs.13,300/-. Seeds were manufactured by OP No.1-Raja Seeds Cot. Industries and sown by him (complainant) in October-2014 in two acres of land. Due to sub-standard, inferior and mix brand of seeds; there was less germination as seeds were not developed properly to the extent of 75% and hence, as per allegation, there was loss of 75% of yield. He (Complainant) approached Haryana Beej Company and requested for inspection of his fields as there was no proper germination. Haryana Beej Company assured him (complainant) that: its officers will inspect his fields soon, but, none came to inspect his fields. He moved application dated 06.04.2015 to District Horticulture Officer-Rewari for inspection, upon which, his fields were inspected on 10.04.2015 and Report No.05 Dated 13.04.2015 had been submitted by Horticulture Development Officer-Kosli to District Horticulture Officer-Rewari mentioning that: “near about 60% ‘Dandals’ were developed on onion seeds and ‘Onion Bulbs’ were small in size”. He received copy of report vide letter No.292 dated 17.04.2015. Complainant has alleged that: he spent Rs.36,000/- on account of rent of land, Rs.25,000/- on account of water and Rs.50,000/- on account of fertilizers, insecticides and labour charges. By alleging that he suffered loss of Rs.3,00,000/-; he has filed complaint by alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for issuance of direction against OPs to pay him Rs.3,00,000/- on account of loss of crop.

5.                In proceedings of complaint, post remand of matter; Raja Seeds Cot. Industries was proceeded against ex-parte vide District Consumer Commission’s order dated 30.08.2019. Dealer (Haryana Beej Company) in its defense has admitted that: it had sold seeds in question in sealed packets, as it is/was purchased from manufacturer viz. OP No.1-Raja Seeds Cot. Industries. It (Haryana Beej Company), being dealer has no liability for any defect in seeds. Liability, if any, is of manufacturer-Raja Seeds Cot. Industries. It is pleaded that complainant has not sown seeds in question, as per terms and conditions of Beej Company. He has/had sown 12 packets of seeds, 500 grams each packet, in two acres of land, whereas, requirement was of 20 packets i.e. 10 Kg. seeds in two acres of land. As per plea, complainant has sown seeds in less quantity. Besides this; the germination also depends upon many other factors. Neither any complaint was made for defects in seeds, nor had any notice been given to OPs, for inspection of fields from any officer of Agriculture/Horticulture Department. It is pleaded that: report has been obtained by Complainant-Shiv Kumar, in collusion of officers of Department. Primarily on these pleas; dismissal of complaint has been prayed by OP No.1-Haryana Beej Company.

6.                Parties led their evidence, oral as well as documentary in earlier round of litigation. However, post remand of matter through order dated 30.05.2019 of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-New DelhiHo; no fresh evidence had been tendered by complainant, whereas Dealer-Haryana Beej Company has placed booklet/instructions meant for sowing onion seeds, so published by Haryana Agriculture University-Hisar. On reappraisal of controversy; learned District Consumer Commission-Mahendergarh at Narnaul vide impugned order dated 19.09.2019 has dismissed consumer’s complaint and simultaneously issued direction to Dealer for payment of Rs.13,300/- to complainant meant for cost of onion seeds in question with further liberty to it to recover said amount (Rs.13,300/-) from Manufacturer-Raja Seeds Cot. Industries.  Two appeals (titled above) have been filed separately at the behest of Complainant-Shiv Kumar and Haryana Beej Company, being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 19.09.2019.

7.                In proceedings of these appeals; Shri Sanjay Panghal, Advocate has earlier put in his appearance, once only on 02.04.2021. Thereafter, he has not appeared on any date of hearing. Learned counsel appearing for Complainant-Shiv Kumar, while urging for acceptance of this appeal, has contended that learned District Consumer Commission has grossly erred, both on factual and legal front, while dismissing his complaint through impugned order dated 19.09.2019. It is urged that: may be, Consumer-Shiv Kumar/Appellant has not led any fresh evidence, post remand of matter from Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-New Delhi, evidence already available on record would suffice the acceptance of his complaint. It is urged that complainant had got his fields inspected from Authorities at the helm of affairs. Dr. Mange Ram-Horticulture Development Officer-Kosli had inspected onion crop at site of his fields and gave Report No.05 Dated 13.04.2015 (Annexure C-6), addressed to District Horticulture Officer-Rewari that: in onion crop sown in two acres of land; there are approximately 60% ‘Dandals’ and ‘Onion Bulbs’ too were small in size. District Horticulture Officer-Rewari had conveyed said report to Complainant-Shiv Kumar, vide letter No.292 dated 17.04.2015 (Annexure C-5). It is urged that: no evidence has been led by OPs to rebut report of Horticulture Department.

8.                Refuting the contentions; learned counsel appearing for Haryana Beej Company-Dealer has urged that no evidence, specifically required to be led, strictly in terms of remand order dated 30.05.2019, passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2615 of 2017 has been brought on record by complainant, after remand of matter and hence as per contention, despite dismissing Consumer’s Complaint through order dated 19.09.2019;  there has been patent illegality committed by learned District Consumer Commission-Mahendergarh at Narnaul, by directing Appellant/Dealer to refund the cost of ‘Onion Seeds’ amounting to Rs.13,300/- (as per purchase bill Annexure C-12) to complainant, with liberty to Dealer/Appellant herein-Haryana Beej Company to recover said amount from manufacturer i.e. Raja Seeds Cot. Industries. It is contended that there was no reason before learned District Consumer Commission to issue direction of payment to complainant with right of recovery.

9.               Admittedly, 6 Kgs. of ‘Onion Seeds Nasik Dark Red (N-53)’, in twelve (12) sealed packets (each weighing 500 grams) were purchased by Complainant-Shiv Kumar on 11.10.2014 for Rs. 13,300/-.  Annexure C-12 is sale invoice in this regard.  As per complainant, he had sown these seeds in two acres of his land and allegedly there was less germination, because seeds did not develop properly.  There was 70 percent loss of ‘Onion Crop’ yield.  Above quality stance of complainant has been refuted by Haryana Beej Company (Dealer/Appellant) on pedestal that complainant has not sown the seeds as per terms and condition of Beej Company. In two acres of land; 10 kg of seeds in quantity is required to be sown, whereas complainant had sown less quantity (6 Kgs of seeds).  To stimulate his case; complainant has relied upon report Annexure C-6 dated 13.04.2015 of Horticulture Development Officer-Kosli.  As per this report; inspection of ‘Onion Crop’ cultivated in field of complainant was conducted on 10.04.2015. This report says that approximately, 60 percent ‘Dandles’ were developed of ‘Onion Bulbs’ and ‘Onion Bulbs’ were also small in size. This report had been forwarded to District Horticultural Officer-Rewari, who in turn, send it to complainant vide letter No.292 dated 17.04.2015 (Annexure C-5).  Haryana Beej Company-Appellant/Dealer has doubted authenticity of report dated 13.04.2015 of Horticulture Development Officer, basically on ground is that: complainant did not complain about his grievance regarding loss of ‘Onion Crop’ and also did not request it (Dealer) to conduct inspection; more so, Horticultural Development Officer-Kosli did not inform it (Dealer) in any manner regarding inspection of allegedly damaged ‘Onion Crop’ in complainant’s field.  In opinion of this Commission; dealer viz. Haryana Beej Company (Appellant) was required to be put to notice regarding inspection of allegedly damaged ‘Onion Crop’ standing in the field of complainant to be conducted by Horticultural Development Officer-Kosli on 10.04.2015. This is blatant violation of Haryana Government’s instructions contained in Memo No. 52-70/TA(SS) dated 03.01.2002, which unambiguously specify that inspection is required to be conducted by Committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of Seed Agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK/HAU. There has been no meticulous compliance of Haryana Government’s Letter dated 03.01.2002 in instant case.  Horticultural Development Officer-Kosli must have been aware of strict compliance of above instructions of State Government. What criteria has been adopted by Horticultural Development Officer-Kosli in order to arrive at conclusion in his report dated 13.04.2015 that there were 60 percent (Approx.) ‘Dandles’ developed of ‘Onion Bulbs’ and ‘Onion Bulbs’ were small in size too, remained in mysterious and mystifying circumstance. In this view of the matter; no credence can be attached, legal parlance, to Horticultural Development Officer’s report dated 13.04.2015 (Annexure C-6).

10.              Since, complainant has been alleging damaged to ‘Onion Crop’ due to sub-standard, inferior and mixed brand of Seeds in question therefore, in law, burden of proof lay upon complainant alone to prove his positive case and legally this burden will never shift.  With the type of evidence led by him, in earlier round of litigation (pre-remand stage of this matter); he has miserable failed to establish, even remotely through preponderance of probability that: ‘Onion Seeds’ purchased by him on 11.10.2014 were inferior in quality. 

11.              At post remand stage of this matter from Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-New Delhi through its order dated 30.05.2019; parties to this lis were commanded upon to lead evidence to prove the quantity of seeds, required to be sown on land measuring two(2) acres in area.  In this regard, curiously enough, complainant has not led any positive evidence before District Consumer Commission.  However, Haryana Beej Company-Dealer has placed on record; photocopy of booklet/instructions (Annexure R-3) meant for sowing ‘Onion Seeds’. This booklet/instructions (Annexure R-3) has been published by Haryana Agriculture University-Hisar and same has formed a formidable and acceptable base to decide this controversy, in the absence of any evidence on complainant. It has to be borne in mind that: specific stand of Haryana Beej Company-Dealer in its written defense is that: for two (2) acres of land in area; 10 kgs of ‘Onion Seeds’ are required to be sown.  Exactly, same is stated in publication-Annexure R-3 of Haryana Agriculture University-Hisar.  Meaning thereby, complainant had admittedly sown less quantity of seeds as he had purchased 6 kgs. of ‘Onion Seeds’ in 12 sealed packets each comprising 500 grams of seeds and sown it in his two (2) acres of land. These instructions expressly indicate that crop with respect to N-53 variety of seed is matured in 140 to 150 days of time period.  The appropriate time for raising nursery i.e for sowing seed is middle of June. Admittedly, in the present case, complainant had purchased seeds in question on 11.10.2014 and it is his specific case and he had sown the ‘Onion Seeds’ in October, 2014.  Meaning thereby, he had not sown the seeds at the time which is appropriate and conducive for ‘Onion Crop’, which as per instruction-Annexure R-3 is middle of June. Still going beyond, complainant had applied for inspection of standing ‘Onion Crop’ in his fields, in month of April- 2015, when onion crop at that point of time was already at its matured stage. 

12.              In view of above reasons there is absolutely no fallacy and illegality on the part of learned District Consumer Commission-Mahendergarh at Narnaul to dismiss complainant’s complaint, vide impugned order dated 19.09.2019 by holding that: he (complainant) has failed to prove that seeds in question purchased by him from Haryana Beej Company and manufactured by Raja Seeds Cot Industries were of sub-standard and inferior quality.  Complainant has been rightly non-suited. Impugned order dated 19.09.2019, to that extent, is maintained, affirmed and up-held. Consequently Complainant’s Appeal (F.A. No. 901 of 2019) is dismissed. 

13.              Learned District Consumer Commission-Mahendergarh at Narnaul, having held that: complainant has failed to prove that seeds in question sold to him by Haryana Beej Company (Dealer) vide Sale Invoice (Annexure C-12) dated 11.10.2014 and manufactured by Raja Seeds Cot. Industries were of sub-standard and inferior quality, and thus having thrown credibility of complainant’s complaint, over board has simultaneously exceeded in its jurisdiction to direct OP No.2(Haryana Beej Company-Appellant) to refund cost of ‘Onion Seeds’ amounting to Rs. 13,300/- to complainant.  No such relief of refund of amount of Rs.13,300/- is tenable to complainant.  There has been no deficiency in service of Haryana Beej Company (Dealer) or adoption of any unfair trade practice on its part. Direction issued by learned District Consumer Commission against Haryana Beej Company (Dealer) to refund Rs. 13,300/- to complainant in its order dated 19.09.2019 is not only illegal and perverse, but also onerous to Dealer/Appellant-Haryana Beej Company. This direction qua refund of amount in impugned order dated 19.09.2019 is accordingly set aside. As a flowing consequence; Appeal of filed by Haryana Beej Company (F.A. No. 1008 of 2019) is allowed.

14.              Statutory amount of Rs. 6750/- deposited by Haryana Beej Company (Dealer-Appellant) while filing its appeal (F.A. No.1008 of 2019), be refunded to it after due identification and verification as per rules.  Registry of this Commission is accordingly directed.  

15.              Application(s) pending, if any stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

16.              Original of this order/judgment be kept in First Appeal File No. 901 of 2019 titled as “Shiv Kumar Versus Raja Seeds Cots Industries and another”.  Attested photocopy of this judgment/order be kept in First Appeal File No.1008 of 2019 titled as “Haryana Beej Company Versus Shiv Kumar and another”. Copy of this judgment/order be also provided to all parties, free of cost, as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. This judgment/order be uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission for perusal of parties.

17.              Files of both appeals tilted above be consigned to record room.

                                    

Date of pronouncement: 05^th August, 2024

 

 

 

                             S.C. Kaushik                         Naresh Katyal                                          Member                                 Judicial Member

Addl. Bench                         Addl. Bench