Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1071/2011

Hari Om S/o Chhitru Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Signet Crop Sciences India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Surjeet Singh Saini

06 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1071 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 13.10.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 06.03.2017.

Sh. Hari Om aged about 48 years son of Sh. Chhitru Ram, resident of V.P. O. Laharpur, Sub Tehsil Sadhaura, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Signet Crop Sciences India Pvt. Ltd. Zonal Ofice: SCF 48, Sector 7, Main Market, Urban State, Karnal-132001, through its Zonal Manager.
2. Signet Crop Sciences India Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office: 1/4537, Ram Nagar Extension, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 through its Manger/Authorized Signatory/Chairman/C.E.O.
3. Signet Crop Sciences India Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office: MIG-352/1, Flat-203, Sri Krishna Enclave, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072 (AP) through its authorized signatory/chairman.

                                                                                                          ... Respondents.  

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Surjeet Singh Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Ramneek Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                    Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is cultivating agriculture land measuring 16 kanal at village Laharpur. On 20.05.2011, agent of the OPs namely Sorav Sharma visited the complainant and disclosed the merits of the seed of paddy of the company  having variety Bhisham and Raja 44. Accordingly, the complainant purchased one bag of 6 Kg. of the Bhisham Variety vide batch No. RHPR 051 and one bag of 6 Kg. of Raja-44 variety vide batch No. RHPB0011 for a sum of Rs. 1100/- and Rs. 550/- each bag on the same day i.e. on 20.05.2011. After that as per instructions, the complainant got prepared the field and after proper preparation, the complainant planted paddy crop of Bhisham variety in one acre and other variety Raja-44 in other one acre. After that, when the crop came at the end of fruit i.e. bali there was mixing of seed of other variety and bali were coming out as dry, which shows that there is a major diseases in the seed of the paddy crop due to which the entire crop in both acres of land was totally damaged. The OPs, through their agents, have sold the inferior quality of paddy seed to the complainant and other farmers due to which the complainant has suffered financial loss as well as harassment. Lastly, prayed for directing the Ops to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of damage to the crop and Rs. 30,000/- as expenses incurred on preparation of planation etc. and also to pay litigation expenses etc.. Hence, this complaint.

3.                   Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum; in the present complaint complex and intricate question of law and facts is involved; no procedure under section 13(1) (C ) of the Consumer Protection has not been followed by the complainant which was mandatory in nature and on this point there are so many citations has been referred in para No.5 of the preliminary objections and on merit it has been stated that company did not receive any complaint of signet Bhisham and signet Raja-44 from any customer of the same village or even from any corner of Haryana State. Further, it has also been mentioned that complainant has purchased two variety of the company of 6 Kg each but no purchase bill has been enclosed by the complainant. As the complainant has purchased two variety of the same company which indicating the possibility of seed mixing at the time of nursery sowing and which can be identified by committee as suggested in para 3a. The company had provided well tested and high quality seed as per the standard of the Seed Act but the crop cultivation and crop care is the sole responsibility of the complainant and the company is no way responsible in any negligence of the complainant. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OPs as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their parts.

4.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Gyan Chand as Annexure CW/A, affidavit of Sultan Singh as Annexure CW/B, affidavit of Mahinder Kumar as Annexure CW/C and documents such as Photo copy of receipt issued by sales executive of the OPs as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of postal receipt as Annexure C-2 to C-4, Photo copy of legal notice dated 27.09.2011 as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of acknowledgement as Annexure C-6, Farad jamabandi as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, OPs failed to adduce any evidence, hence, their evidence was closed by court order on dated 22.02.2017. However, at the time of filing of reply counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Manoj Kumar Pundir Authorized Signatory as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Pamphlet of Signet Seeds as Ex. R-1, Photo copy of letter issued by Director of Agriculture memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002 alongwith letter dated 14.09.2004 and letter dated 18.03.2009 as Ex. R-2,Photo copy of another pamphlet of OP Company as Ex. R-3,  Photo copy of authorization letter as Ex. R-4 in support of their version.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     The only plea of the complainant is that he purchased 2 varieties of paddy seed of the OPs Company and when the crop came at the end of fruit i.e. at the stage of balis, there was mixing of seed of other varieties and balis were coming out dry which show there was major disease in the seed of the paddy crop due to which the entire crop in both 2 acres of land has been totally damaged and complainant has suffered financial loss but this plea of the complainant is not tenable as no such cogent evidence has been placed on file by the complainant. The complainant wants to get the benefits as per local commissioner report submitted by the Quality Control Inspector on 06.12.2011 but from the perusal of this report, it is clear that the alleged inspection has been carried out by only Quality Control Inspector (Agriculture) as no presence of any other persons has been marked on this report. Moreover, in the report also the said local commissioner has mentioned that about 50% plants were with grain-less panicles/ ear heads. Economic loss estimated is as 658.8 Kg. rice per acre as compared to last year yield of 1317.6 Kg. rice per acre of Yamuna Nagar District but no criteria has been disclosed by the said Local Commissioner in his report for assessing the said estimated loss. As on that day i.e. 17.10.2011 when the Local Commissioner has shown visited the effected filed of the farmer, it was the end of crop season of the paddy and almost all the farmers harvested their crop. We have gone through the report in question of the Agriculture Officer, it would not be out of place to mention here that the officer of the Agriculture Department have not mentioned the Khasra number and Killa number of the land which was allegedly inspected by him. From the report in question, the identity of the land cannot be established and such report do not carry in evidentiary value. Holding these views, we have relied upon the observation of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in case titled as Narender Kumar Versus M/s Arora Trading Company and others, 2007(2) CLT page 683 in which it was clearly observed by the Lordship when the killa and khasra numbers of the land which was inspected by the agriculture department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. As such, no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant simply on the basis of self-serving affidavits when there is no evidence with respect to the loss of crop. Furthermore, inspection report has no evidentiary value particularly when representative of the OPs has not been joined at the time of inspection and inspection committee has not given any opportunity to express their opinion about the said seeds. The seed in question has also not been got tested from any laboratory to prove that seeds supplied by the OPs were defective. In this regard we are also fortified with the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Prem vs. Seeds Works India Private Ltd. and another, 2016 (4) CLT page 507.

 8.                    The authorities cited by the counsel for the complainant titled as Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Arvind Bajirao Borkar, Aged adult, Occ. Agriculturist & Others, 2013(3) CPC page 599 (NC), Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd. Versus Sh. Chaman Lal and another, 2007 (1) CPC page 301 are not disputed but not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

9.                     Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove his case. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant 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 be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 06.03.2017.          

                                                                               (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                               (S.C.SHARMA)

                                MEMBER