THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 506 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 09.11.2011.
Date of Decision: -20.03.2017.
Virender Kumar son of Jagdish Singh, resident of village Nalwa, District Hisar.
….Complainant.
Versus
- National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (Government of India Undertaking) Beej Bhawan, Pusha Complex, New Delhi.
- Sonu Beej Bhandar, Near Govt. Senior Secondary School, Siwani Mandi, Bhiwani through Proprietor.
- M/s Jagdish Store, Tilak Bazar, Hisar.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Ranvijay Singh, Advocate for complainant
Shri Ajay Allawadi, Advocate for Ops no. 1.
Shri C.D. Singla, Advocate for OP no. 2 & 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased gawar cluster seeds of Marka C/S-II, Variety No. 118-365, lot No. October 10.20.109.12, date of packing April 2011, bill No. 1737 dated 16.06.2011 amounting to Rs. 592/- from OPs. 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 4 to 5 feet and it did not carry any fruit as such the complainant is nothing to get from the entire 4 acres of land. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. 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.HeHe
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has brought out his case that he purchased the subjected seed from OP no. 2 who is not the authorized dealer of answering respondent. It is submitted that the complainant did not purchase the said seed directly from answering respondent nor its authorized dealer M/s Durga Sales Agency, Loharu Road, Bhiwani. It is submitted that the complainant has never made any complaint to answering respondent nor made any complaint to its authorized dealer. 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. OP no. 2 filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed just to grab illegal compensation. It is submitted that the answering respondent is retailer in seeds of reputed manufacturing companies which are renowned in India. It is submitted that there is no consumer disputes between the parties. It is submitted that the complainant never made any complaint to the answering respondent regarding the seed. 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. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-5 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. On the other hand, counsels for Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6.
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 purchased the seed in question from OP no. 2 vide bill no. 1737 dated 16.06.2011 Annexure A-2 for a consideration of Rs. 592/-. He submitted that the complainant sowed the seed in his fields. From the germination of seed the plants were gone up to the height of 4 to 5 feet but there was no fruit on the plants, hence the complainant did not get any yield from the seed. He submitted that on the request of the complainant a team was constituted, who inspected the fields. The team inspected the fields on 27.09.2011 and submitted their report dated 27.09.2011 Annexure A-3. He submitted that as per the inquiry report Annexure A-3, the seed supplied by the Ops was of poor quality. Therefore, the complainant suffered losses due to the inferior quality of seed. In support of his contention he referred the Farad Jamabandi Annexure A-4 & A-5. He contended that the Ops are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant.
8. Learned counsels for OPs reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. They submitted that the seed in question was certified seed manufactured by the State Corporation of India Limited a Government of India Undertaking. They submitted that there is no complaint of the germination of the seed in question by the complainant. The yield from the crop depends on various factors, like condition of soil, irrigation, moisture content in the air, rain fall and use of pesticides etc. They 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 for various lots sold by the manufacturer of seed, which are Annexure R-1 to R-3. Vide said certificates under Section 9 of the Seed Act 1966, confirmed the standard prescribed for certification under the seed act. They further submitted that the inquiry report dated 27.09.2011 submitted by the inspecting team. They 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. Learned counsels for the Ops contended that the inquiry team has not mentioned in their report dated 27.09.2011 Annexure A3, that the seed was of poor quality. The counsels for the Ops contended that the complainant has not produced the copy of khasra girdawari. The counsels for the OPs stressed that the complainant has not followed the procedure to get analysis of the seeds as per the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned counsels for the Ops 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 27.09.2011 submitted by the team of four persons. 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 to R-3. 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:20.03.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member
