Haryana

Ambala

CC/158/2012

CHANDER KISHORE S/O MADAN LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

ANIL SINGLA

24 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                         BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                     Complaint Case No.: 158 of 2012

          Date of Institution    : 23.05.2012

          Date of Decision    : 24.06.2016

Chander Kishor son of Shri Madan Lal R/o village Kambass, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

                                          ……….Complainant

                                                               Versus

1.       M/s Signet Crop Sciences India Pvt. Ltd. MIG-352/1, Flat 203, Shri Krishna Enclave, Balaji Nagar, 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-132001 ( Haryana).

3.       M/s Sach Trading Company, Adhoya Road, Barara, District Ambala through its proprietor Sh. Anil Kumar.

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Sh. Anil Singla, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. C.M. Rana, Adv. counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

                   Sh. Ashish Sareen, Adv. counsel for Op No.3.                    

ORDER

                    Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that the complainant purchased 04 bags Paddy Seeds-5275 measuring 3 Kg. each @ Rs.630/- per Bag from OP No.3 vide Bill No.342 dated 24.05.2011 and OP No.3 assured that  the said Paddy Seeds are of best quality and shall provide high yields  being hybrid seed.  Complainant sown the said seeds  and later on, transplanted the same in his 3 acres of land but the seeds did not properly germinate and unfortunately 60% of plants prematured due to mixing of inferior quality of seeds causing a huge loss, so the complainant approached the OP No.3 who assured to inform the matter to OPs No.1 & 2 and they will compensate the complainant for the loss but the OP No.3 kept on avoiding the complainant on one pretext or the other  and thus the complainant approached the District Agricultural Officer, Ambala to visit the spot and to inspect the said paddy seeds, accordingly, an Inspecting Team, visited the fields on 22.09.2011 and submitted detailed report after inspection of the crop vide no.5580 dated 30.09.2011 which clearly shows that  the said paddy seeds germinated only 60-65% whereas 35-40% paddy seeds were damaged. After receipt of report from Agriculture Department, complainant served legal notice upon Ops but of no avail. As such, the complainant has contended that due to poor germination of the seeds, he has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.2.00 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 for non-joinder & mis-joinder of the necessary parties. On merits, it has been urged that the complainant purchased 12 Kg. variety Arjun 5275 paddy seed  and sown in 3 acres land instead of 18 Kg seed as minimum  6 Kg seed is required per acre as clearly mentioned on the packets/leaflets of the seeds. It has been further urged by the OP that yield never depends upon the single factor rather there are various factors which effects the yield like Agronomy practices, decease management, pest management, environment factor, climate, soil facility, quality of irrigation water and management of the farmer practices which always vary from farmer to farmer. Answering Op has also urged that the report dated 30.09.2011 prepared by the inspecting team of Agriculture Deptt. 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  to all the Deputy Directors Agriculture in the state vide memo no.52-70 dated 03.01.2002, memo no.1386-1404 dated 14.09.2004 and memo no.744-62 dated 18.03.2009 that “fields of complainant farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising of 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.” In the end, OP have also contended that complainant has failed to produce any laboratory report qua testing of the seeds as defective and as such, they are not deficient and requested for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs.

                   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  qua purchase of paddy seeds but he has not disclosed the date when the saplings were prepared. Further it has been urged that complainant never shown that he is owner of 3 Acre of land nor he has submitted any evidence that actually he had sown the same seed which was purchased from the answering OP. It has been further contended by the answering OP that prior to filing the complaint, complainant must have approached the Seed Inspector regarding less germination of the seeds in his fields since as per Rule 23-A of ‘The Seed Rules 1968’, Seed Inspector was duty bound to investigate the cause  of less germination of the seed by sending a sample of the lot to the seed analyst for a detailed analysis  in the State Seeds Testing Laboratory but he has failed to get the sample of seed tested  through seed inspector. Besides it, the complainant has also failed to get the seed tested from the Laboratory with the assistance of Forum as required U/s 13(1)(c) of the Act.  Rest of the contents of complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A  and affidavit of  one Shri Satpal Singh as Annexure CW2 alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-11 and closed his evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Op No.1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of  one Sh. Manoj Kumar Pundir, Authorized Signatory of OP No.1  as Annexure RX and closed their evidence. Counsel for Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of one Anil Gupta as Annexure RY and closed the evidence.

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 germinate upto the mark and gave less yield than expectations.  Report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-3) was relied upon by complainant qua ‘mixing of seeds and percentage  of loss in germination in the range of 35-40%’. As such, counsel for complainant has argued that due to deficient seeds sold by Ops, complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs for less production of the crops and requested for allowing the complaint.

                   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 report Annexure C-3 has been obtained by complainant in collusion with Agriculture Department team comprising of (1) Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Ambala, (2) SMS (PP) O/o SDAO,  Ambala & (3) Block Agriculture Officer, Saha (Distt. Ambala) whereas as per letter/instructions issued vide Memo No.52-70 dated 03.01.2002 by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to All the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State that  at the time of inspection of fields by the committee comprising of 2 officers of Agriculture Deptt., 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 Agriculture Deptt. 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 (Annexure C-3) but the Director Agriculture, Hayrana vide their above referred letters has observed and issued directions that “it 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”. The said view of Agriculture Department, Haryana has been further circulated  vide letters issued vide Memo No.1386-1404/TASS dated 14.09.2004 and 744-62/TA(L) dated 18.03.2009. Thus the report (Annexure C-3) of some officers of Agriculture Deptt. which is without associating a representative of OP seed company and a Scientist of CCSHAU, Hisar or  KGK/KVK is not an authentic document & cannot be relied upon and  thus on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were not of standard quality.  Further counsel for Ops has placed reliance on case law rendered in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Coop. Ltd.  Vs.  Ram Swaroop, Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014, decided on 26.11.2014 wherein Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi referring to observation of a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd.Vs. Sadhu &Anr. (II(2005) CPJ-13 SC) as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors. (Civil Apeal No.2428/2008) has held that “variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The Apex Court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant. Report of Agriculture Department in the case in hand does not mention about inferior quality of seeds and merely because some of the plants were of low height without any fruit, it cannot be presumed that seeds were mixed with low quality of seeds.” Further the Hon’ble National Commission, has held that “in the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that report obtained by the complainant without notice to OP cannot be relied upon”.

                   In view of the above referred letters/instructions of Agriculture Department, Haryana and observation made by the Superior Courts, we are of the confirmed view that where a complainant alleges inferior quality of seeds and thereby low germination of crop, it is necessary  that  the team consisted for inspection of the field must associate a representative of OP seed company and a Scientist of some reputed university/KVK/KGK which is lacking in this case.  As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced:  24.06.2016                                                                    Sd/- 

                                                                                               (A.K. SARDANA)

                            PRESIDENT                 

 

                                                                              Sd/-

                  (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                         MEMBER