Haryana

Ambala

CC/23/2014

SUKHDEV SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNGRO SEEDS LTD - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.GILL

04 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 23 of 2014

                                                          Date of Institution         : 16.01.2014

                                                          Date of decision   : 04.07.2017

 

 

          Sukhdev Singh son of sh. Asa Ram, resident of village Ojlan, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

1. Sungro Seeds Ltd. plot No.1 Manish Chambers 2^nd floor, B.N. Block, Local Shopping Centre, Shalimar Bhag, Delhi-110088.
2. Balwindra Seeds Store, Seeds and Pesticides Supplier, Shop No.3, Near Bus Stand, Ambala Cantt.

 

….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

 

Present:       Sh. B.S. Gill, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Sachdeva, counsel for OPs.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased 18 bags containing 500 grams each of Sungro Seeds Marka Carrot Desi Red lot No.SBS-BRC 601593B for sowing the same in his field vide bill dated 14.08.2013 for Rs.4500/- from the OP No.2 but the complainant observed that the yield of the carrot crop will not going to be upto the mark and specification as assured by the OP No.2 at the time of selling the said seeds to complainant. Further submitted that the complainant contacted the OP No.2 on this subject but OP NO.2 has failed to give any genuine reason for the loss of carrot crop. Further submitted that feeling aggrieved by this, the complainant has made a complaint to the District Horticulture Officer, Ambala. Upon the complaint of the complainant, the concerned authority had inspected the standing crop of complainant in his agriculture fields and gave adverse report vide report dated 03.12.2013 which was conveyed to complainant vide letter No.2261 dated 03.12.2013 and the report dated 03.12.2013 contained the said carrot seeds were found adulterated and mixed with sub-standard seeds as stated in the report. Further submitted that after receiving this report complainant approached to the OP No.2 to compensate the loss caused to complainant due to the supply of sub-standard seeds causing financial loss to the complainant, but the OP No.2 did not pay towards the genuine request of complainant, despite of the facts that the OP No.2 had assured complainant for handsome yield on crop comparing to the other type of carrot seeds. In this way, OP No.1 being a manufacturer and OP No.2 being a dealer, both have caused tremendous financial loss of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre to complainant by providing the above said sub-standard carrot seeds. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement and take the preliminary objection is that the present complaint is not maintainable on the merit. Further submitted that the complainant had not properly farming and due to this act of the complainant, the complainant suffered loss of carrot for which the answering OPs are not liable in any manner and the seeds sold by the OP is of good quality and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X, C-Y & C-Z along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-10 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith document as Annexure R-1 to R-10 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. Counsel for complainant argued that the seed in question was found adulterated and mixed with sub-standard seeds and not of the best quality to the contrary the yield of the carrot crop will not going to be upto the mark. The complainant is relied upon the report of Horticulture Department (Annexure-3) and Investigation Committee found that “Crop yield and quantity of the plants are satisfactory but roots of the plant were not good in quality. In some plants, branches of seeds have started to germinate in bunches which proves that aforesaid variety is not appropriate for plantation and the variety of above said seeds is not suitable for this area during the month of September. Branches roots (as found in the crops aforesaid) are deemed to be inferior quality and due to this reason, farmer is able to fetch good price for them in the market”. Counsel for complainant further argued that due to supplying of inferior quality of seeds, complainant suffered a financially loss and  requested for allowing the present complaint.

                   On the other hand, counsel for OPs has argued that there was no deficiency in seeds and the complainant has not properly farming and due to this act of the complainant, the complainant suffered loss of carrot. Counsel for OPs further stressed his arguments on the ground that the report of Horticulture Department has not been carried out in the presence of any person of OPs. Counsel for OP is further contented that as per Annexure R-4 and Annexure R-5 i.e. Seeds has been tested by prescribed laboratory of same variety and same lot No. from which complainant has purchased. It is clear from the test report that the quality of the seeds is 95% pure. Thus, there is no defect in the seeds.

5.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties, there are two points involved in this case:-

                   1.       Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs or                                   not?

                   2.       If deficiency in service on the part of Ops is proved then to                                what extent, the complainant is entitled for compensation?

                             The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased 18 bags containing 500 grams each of Sungro SeedsMarka Carrot Desi Red lot No.SBS-BRC 601593B for sowing the same in his field vide bill dated 14.08.2013 for Rs.4500/- from OP No.2 as per Annexure C-1. To prove his case, the complainant has also placed on file photographs of carrot and empty packets of seeds which show that the complainant has sown the seeds of Carrot Desi Red in his fields. We have gone through the report of Horticulture Department Annexure C-3 consisting of three Govt. officer and they have clearly mentioned that “Crop yield and quantity of the plants are satisfactory but roots of the plant were not good in quality. In some plants, branches of seeds have started to germinate in bunches which proves that aforesaid variety is not appropriate for plantation and the variety of above said seeds is not suitable for this area during the month of September. Branches and roots (as found in the crops aforesaid) are deemed to be of inferior quality and due to this reason, farmer is unable to fetch good price for them in the market”. Even then, it was duty of the OPs to rebut the report of the Horticulture Department by way of summoning anyone of the member of the inspection team for cross-examination, at the time of leading their evidence. So, report of the Inspection Committee cannot be brushed aside on the contention that seeds not sent for testing and report has been obtained at the back the Ops.  We have perused the test report placed by the OP as Annexure R-4 and Annexure R-5 and same belong to the OP themselves and not issued by any Govt. Certified Agency and same is not an independent report. So, we cannot rely upon the test report filed by the OP. As such, both the Ops are responsible for selling poor/mixed quality seeds to the complainant which resulted into the huge loss to the complainant. Hence, we conclude that OP No.2  had sold defective seeds to the complainant which was manufactured by OP No.1. However, there can be no knowledge to OP No.2 for alleged defect as OP No.2 has sold the seeds in the same condition in which these were received by him.

                   We have gone through judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled M/s National Seeds Corporation ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. 2012 RCR Civil Page No.838 “wherein it is held that Section 13-Procedure for trial of complaint- complainant by farmer/growers of seeds supplied by appellants resulting in less field –sample seeds not available with complainants as all seeds purchased were sown-Appellant also not providing sample of seeds sold for analysis-Consumer Forum appointing agriculture experts to ascertain status and cause of failure of crop-Compensation awarded to complainants on basis of report of expert-Procedure adopted by Forum cannot be said to be contrary to Section 13(1) (C)-Order of Forum not liable to be set aside as specious ground that procedure prescribed under Section 13 (1) © had not been followed and the Hon’ble National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Circuit Bench at Pune, Maharashtra) in case titled Prathan Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Amir & Anr. 2008 (iv) CPJ Pg. 119-120 (NC) wherein held that “Section 2(1)(f), 14(I)(d)- Agriculture –Seeds defective-Inspection carried out by Inquiry- Committee- Vast Variance in characteristics of plaints found – complaint allowed by Forum compensation granted - order upheld in appeal-Hence revision- Procedure prescribed under Seeds Act followed –Necessary aside on contention that seeds not sent for testing- Orders of lower for a upheld”. The above said judgments M/s National Seeds Corporation ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. as well as Prathan Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Amir & Anr. are fully covered the case of the complainant.

6.                Now coming to the point of compensation, during the course of arguments complainant has placed the letter issued by the Horticulture Department as Annexure-A regarding yield of the carrot 110 quintal per acre. So, as per the letter issued by the Horticulture Department, the complainant must have took at least 165 quintal carrot in 1.5 acre of land as mentioned in the Inspection Report of Horticulture Department. We further presume that market price of the crop which may not less than 500/- per quintal as per prevailing government rate in the month of December 2013 of carrot as shown in the price list which is placed by the complainant as Annexure-B. As Such, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs. 82,500/- in 1.5 acres (165 quintal x Rs.500/- per quintal) which was sown by the complainant. As such we hold that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation to the complainant alongwith cost.

7.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay Rs.82,500/- to the complainant as compensation,  if the OPs failed to pay the      above said amount within stipulated period then they will pay the    interest @ 9%           from the date of complaint till its realization.      .it is made clear that if the compliance of the     order is made by the OP     No.2 then OP No.2        may recover the said amount from the Op         No. 1 as manufacturing defect in the seeds           solely attributed to OP No.1

(ii)     Also to pay Rs. 3000/- as cost of      proceedings.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :   04.06.2017                                            Sd/-

                                                                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                           Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

                    Sd/-

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member