Haryana

Ambala

CC/40/2012

SINGARA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SINGNET CROP SCIENCE INDIA PVT,LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JASWINDER SINGH

17 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                     Complaint Case No.: 40 of 2012

          Date of Institution    :02.02.2012

          Date of Decision    : 17.06.2016

 

Singara Singh son of Sh. Harnam Singh, resident of village Kambasi, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

 

……….Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.       M/s Signet Crop Science India Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office: 302, Bharat Residency, Shanti Nagar, Medcha, District Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad 500072 (AP) India, through its authorized signatory.

 

          2^nd Address: 522, First Floor, New Grain Market, G.T.Road, Karnal-132001 (Haryana), through its authorized signatory.

 

2.       M/s  Sach Trading Company, Adhoya Road, Barara, District Ambala through its proprietor.

 

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

 

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

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. C.M. Rana, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Ashish Sareen, Adv. counsel for Op No.2.

                    

ORDER

 

                    Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that the complainant purchased 02 bags Paddy Seeds-5275 measuring 3 Kg. each @ Rs.200/- per Kg. costing a sum of Rs.1200/- from OP No.2 vide Bill No.312 dated 18.05.2011 and OP No.2 assured that  the said Paddy Seeds are of best quality and shall provide high yields  being hybrid seed. Complainant sown said seeds in 2 acres of land on 22.05.2011 and later on, transplanted the same in his fields on 17.06.2011 but the seeds did not properly germinate even after a lapse of more than two months rather grown up in a mixing with three kinds of quality seeds. Complainant approached the Op No.2 who visited the fields and assured for intimating the matter to OP No.1 but none from OP No.1 came at the spot for enquiry inspite of the information supplied by Op No.2 to OP No.1 as confirmed by OP No.2 to the complainant. So, the complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Ambala to visit the spot and to inspect the said paddy seeds, accordingly, an Inspecting Team comprising of three officers of the department visited the fields on 22.09.2011 and submitted detailed report after inspection of the crop vide no.5575 dated 30.09.2011 which clearly shows that  the said paddy seeds germinated only 65-70%   whereas 30-35% paddy seeds were damaged. Thus the complainant has contended that due to poor germination of the seeds, complainant suffered a huge loss of Rs.20,000/- per acre totaling Rs.40,000/-in 2 acres  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.  Op No.1 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 6 Kg. variety Nakul-5275 paddy seed  and sown in 2 acres land whereas minimum  6 Kg seed is required per acre as clearly mentioned on the packets/leaflets which is 50% below  the proper quantity of the seed. 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 further 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 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.2 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 6 Kg. 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 2 Acre of land nor he has submitted any evidence that actually he had sown the same seed which was purchased from the answering OP. Further, it has been urged that the complainant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection 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 affidavits as Annexure CX & CY alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-3 and closed his evidence whereas on the other hand, Op No.1 failed to tender any evidence despite availing various opportunities as such, their evidence was closed by court order dated 12.01.2015. Counsel for Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of one Anil Kumar 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 ‘three types of paddy plants are present in the field with matured short, matured long and green longest respectively resulted due to seed mixing and percentage loss in the range of 30-35%’. As such, counsel for complainant has argued that due to deficient seeds sold by Ops, complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.40,000/- for less production of crops in 2 acres of land 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:17.06.2016

                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                          (A.K. SARDANA)

                            PRESIDENT                 

 

                                                                                     Sd/-

                  (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                         MEMBER