THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 05 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 02.01.2012.
Date of Decision: -07.03.2017.
Dinesh Kumar son of Phul Kumar, resident of village Naloi, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Shubham Trading Company, Gurera More, Siwani Mandi, District Bhiwani, through its Proprietor.
- Manager, State Farms Corporation of India, Jaipur, Regd. Office, Farm Bhawan, 14-15, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
- National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (NSC) (A Govt. of India Undertaking) Beej Bhawan PUSA Complex New Delhi-110012 through its Deputy General Manager Central State Farms Hissar a unit of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (NSC) 10th k.m. Stone Bhiwani Road, Hissar.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Sh. Satpal Sihag, Advocate for the complainant.
None for OP no. 1.
Shri Ajay Allawadhi, Advocate for OP no. 2 & 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased 13 packets of Guwar seeds named GH365 from the OP no. 1 on 15.07.2011. It is alleged that the complainant paid Rs. 1976/- to the OP no. 1 and OP no. 1 issued a bill No. 362 dated 15.07.2011. It is alleged that the complainant had sown Guwar seeds in the above said field land on 16.07.2011 in 13 acre land (104 kanals). It is alleged that the respondents had assured the complainant that the seeds so purchased by the complainant are very much trusted and good yielding. It is alleged that after sowing the seed and by the passage of time it is found that the growth of gawar plant has gone to the height ranging from 7 to 8 feets & it did not carry any fruit as such the complainant is nothing to get from the entire acres of land. It is alleged that the complainant made a complaint to Sub-Divisional Officer, Agriculture Department, Siwani for checking the Guwar crops and a team of Agriculture Officers and experts was constituted for inspection the crops of the complainant and other farmers. It is alleged that as per the report the crops of the complainant was not matched with the quality of Guwar seeds HG365 which was developed by Chaudhary Charan Singh Agriculture University, HIsar. 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 complainant is not a consumer of the respondent. It is submitted that the complainant has no grudge regarding germination of the seed in question. 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 did not purchase the said seed directly from the answering respondent. It is submitted that there is no documentary proof/evidence in the complaint as well as on record which may prove that seed in question was actually sown by the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has never made any complaint to the answering respondent nor made any complaint to its local office. 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, the counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the OP no. 2 has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-2.
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 had purchased the seed variety HG-365 from OP no. 1 to take the crop of Gawar. The complainant sowed the seed in his fields but the crops so raised did not give any yield. The complainant made a request to the SDO Agriculture Department for the inspection of his crop. The inquiry committee submitted the report after the inspection of the field of farmers on 15.11.2011, which is Annexure C-3. He submitted that in view of said report, the seed supplied by the Ops was of poor quality. Hence the Ops are liable to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant.
8. Learned counsel for OP no. 2 & 3 reiterated the contents of his reply. He submitted that the seed in question was certified seed manufactured by the State Corporation of India Limited a Government of India Undertaking. He 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. He 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-II under Section 9 of the Seed Act 1966, confirmed the standard prescribed for certification under the seed act, which is Annexure R-1 from page No. 1 to 26. He further submitted that the complainant has not produced the copy of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari regarding the sowing of the said seed in his fields and the crop so raised and the loss caused to the said crop. He further submitted that the inquiry report dated 15.11.2011 submitted by the team of three persons relates to 4 agriculturist. He submitted that the said team while inspecting the field of the consumer did not call the Ops in compliance of the instruction of Government of Haryana issued vide memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002. Hence said report is not binding on the Ops. Learned counsel for the Ops no. 2 & 3 contended that the inquiry team has not mentioned in their report dated 15.11.2011 that the seed was of poor quality. The counsel for the OP no. 2 & 3 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 no. 2 & 3 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 15.11.2011 submitted by the team of three persons is related to 4 agriculturist. The said inquiry report does not disclose dates on which the fields of the respective 4 agriculturist were examined by them and nothing has been mentioned about notice to the Ops i.e. the seller and producer of the seed regarding the inspection of the fields of the agriculturist. 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 the report of seeds as Annexure R-1. 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: 07.03.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member. Member
