Haryana

Ambala

CC/104/2012

BALJINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SIGNET CROP SCIENCE INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SUSHIL KUMAR

24 Jun 2016

ORDER

                            BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                      Complaint Case No.: 104 of 2012

          Date of Institution    : 06.04.2012

          Date of Decision    :  24.06.2016

Bajinder Singh son ofShriHukamAdhoyaTehsilBarara, DistrictAmbala.

……….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Signet Crop Sciences India Pvt. Ltd.MIG-352/1, Flat 203,ShriBalajiNagar,Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072 (A.P.) through its Managing Director/Director.

2.       Signet Crop Sciences India (P) Ltd. 522, New Grain Market, Ist Floor G.T. Road,Karnal-132001Haryana).

3.       M/sSachAdhoyaBarara, DistrictAmbala

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH.PUSHPENDER

Present:       Sh. AnilSingla, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   Ops No.1 & 2exparte.

                   Sh.AshishSareen, Adv. counsel for Op No.3.                    

ORDER

                    Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that the complainant purchased.3prematuredAmbala.10.2011-80% whereas 25-30%lacs  which is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of Ops in supplying/selling the defective seeds and prayed for  acceptance of complaint as per prayer clause.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through their respective counsels and filed written statements separately.  Ops No.1 & 2 raised preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, complaint is bad fornon-joindermis-joinderDeptt. as alleged in the complaint is also wrong since the inspecting team itself ignored the instructions/directions of their own department as there are clear instructions issued by Director Agriculture,Haryana

                   OP No.3 tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua  jurisdiction and non-maintainability of complaint. On merits, it has been urged that complainant has attached a bill for purchase of 06

3.                To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit asAnnexureAnnexurealongwithAnnexuresexparte. Counsel for Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of one Anil Gupta asAnnexure

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Counsel for the complainant argued that the seed in question was not of best quality and thus it did not germinateuptomixing of seeds and percentage  of loss in germination in the range of 25-30%’.2.00lacs

                   On the other hand, counsel for Ops has argued that there was no deficiency in seeds as the complainant has not sown them as per instructions of the Op’s i.e. seed agency and the reportAnnexureAmbala, (2) SMS (PP) O/oSDAO, AmbalaSahaDistt.Ambala) & (4) Agriculture Development Officer,BararaHaryana,PanchkulaDeptt., one representative of Concerned Seed Agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK/HAU should be associated but these instructions have not been complied with meticulously by the officers of AgricultureDeptt. and thus the report relied upon by complainant in this case is no report in the eyes of law.

5.                After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the record very minutely, we have come to the conclusion that case of complainant revolves around the report of Agriculture department (AnnexureHayranait has been reported by some seed producing  agencies that fields of complainant farmers are inspected by the officers of Agriculture Department without associating the representatives of concerned seed agencies and scientists of CSS HAU,Hisar.  Sometimes cases in court of law are decided after taking into consideration report of these inspections. Therefore, it has been decided that fields of complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientists of KGK/KVK/HAU and report will be submitted to this office immediately after inspection”.HaryanaTASSAnnexureDeptt. which is without associating a representative of OP seed company and a Scientist ofCCSHAU,HisarSwaroop, Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014, decided on 26.11.2014 wherein Hon’ble National Consumer DisputesRedressalHaryanaCorpn. Ltd.Vs.SadhuCPJ-13MahycoBasappaChannappaMookiApeal

                   In view of the above referred letters/instructions of Agriculture Department,Haryana

Announced:24.06.2016                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                       (A.K. SARDANA)

                            PRESIDENT                 

                                                                                             Sd/-

                  (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                         MEMBER