Haryana

Karnal

CC/424/2021

Sumit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sungro Seeds Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Yashpal Sharma

09 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 424 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.23.08.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:09.04.2024

 

1. Sumit aged about 28 years.
2. Amit aged about 27 years.

Sons of Shri Krishan Chand, resident of village Kalheri, tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1. Sungro Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Head office 2^nd floor, Manish Chambers, B.N. B,ock, Local Shopping Center, Shalimar Bag, (West) Delhi-110088, through its Manager.
2. Mohan Seed Company, Old Subzi Mandi, Beej Market, Karnal through its proprietor/partner.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Yashpal Sharma, counsel for the complainants.

                    Shri Mohit Arora, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Vishal Goyal, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                     (Dr. Suman Singh, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 28.03.2020, complainant no.1 had purchased seeds of Musk Melon (Madhuras) net weight 4 kg i.e. 16 bags of 250gms, vide batch no.0000003038 vide invoice no.7750 and complainant no.2 had also purchased seeds of Musk Melon (Madhuras) net weight 4 kg i.e. 16 bags of 250gms, vide batch no.0000003038 vide invoice no.7749 amounting to Rs.12,000/- from the OP no.2. The said seed was packed and marketed by the OP no.1. The complainants planted the said seeds in their agriculture land. When the plants grew, the complainants realized that some local made seed, were present. Complainants made a written complaint to the District Horticulture Officer, office at HTI, Campus, Uchani, Karnal. On the complaint of the complainants, the official of Horticulture visited the fields of complainants and inspected the same and found that 10-15% seeds were local in the whole seeds. On 16.06.2020, the report was made by the Horticulture Department in this regard. After receiving the said report, complainants visited OP no.2 and requested to compensate them with the loss of crop as in the purchased seeds, there was mixing of local seed and hence the complainants suffered a huge financial loss but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainants. On 25.07.2020, complainants again approached the OP no.2 with the same request to compensate the complainants but OP no.2 did not listen to the complainants and also misbehaved with them. Then complainants sent a legal notice dated 26.08.2020  to the OPs through their counsel but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

 2.            On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainants have purchased the musk melon seeds separately vide bills no.7749 and 7750 dated 28.03.2020. Complainants have no where mentioned about the sowing practices adopted and the details of the use of fertilizers and insecticides given by them. The details of watering and cultivation practices, method of sowing, intercultural operations are also not given by the complainant. The weeding is not done properly by the complainant. The complainant has sown other local variety seeds in the said musk melon field for gap filling. The OPs are not at all responsible for the alleged problem. The complainant has not sown the seeds as per the directions/instructions contained in the Brochure/literature (crop cultivation practices). The complainant has not followed recommended agriculture practices and has failed to apply recommended fertilizers and insecticides. The proper growth of crop and the yield depends on proper agriculture operations, such as, proper preparation of the land, fertilization, type of land, proper irrigation, climate and seasonal conditions. Simply, because of less growth of plants or less germination, it cannot be said that seeds sown were not good. It is pleaded that complainants have not sent seed sample to seed test laboratory for analysis and failed to produce seed testing report of laboratory as per section 38 (2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, which is mandatory. It is further pleaded that complainants have alleged that they have filed a written complaint with the Horticulture Officer at HTI, Campus, Uchani, Karnal but OPs denied the said inspection report as no notice or intimation was provided to the OP about the said field inspection. The inspection of the fields was carried out at the back and behind of the OP, hence report submitted is not binding to the OP. It is further pleaded that alleged seed lot no.0000003088 purchased by the complainant was duly tested in the Quality Assurance Department of the OP prior to its marketing and the said lot was found 69% germination and 99.60% pure seed vide quality control laboratory test report dated 24.01.2020, which is within the minimum prescribed Standards as per Seed Act, 1966. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainants fail to prove that there was defect in seeds manufactured by OP no.1 and sold by OP no.2. It is further pleaded that the seed purchased by the complainants was shown in how much land. It may also be possible that the complainants had mixed up two varieties of seeds. Moreover, it is not specified by the Horticulture Department, whose field was inspected by them because there are two complainants. OP no.2 further followed the same lines of written statement filed by OP no.1. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sumit complainant no.1 Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Amit complainant no.2 Ex.CW2/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipts and acknowledgement Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, copy of inspection report Ex.C5, copies of bills dated 28.03.2020 Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, copy of aadhar card of Sumit Ex.C8, copy of aadhar card of Amit Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 25.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mahendra Chavan, authorized signatory Ex.OP1/A, copy of certificate of incorporation Ex.OP1, copy of renewal of recognition Ex.OP2, copy of certificate of registration Ex.OP3, copy of letter by Government of India Ex.OP4, copy of certificate of Accreditation Ex.OP5, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.OP6, copy of laboratory report Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 02.01.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Pavitar Singh, authorized signatory Ex,.OP2/A and closed the evidence on 02.01.2024 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for the complainants, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainants had purchased the seeds of Musk Melon from the OPs and sowed the said seeds in their fields. OPs supplied the mix quality seeds due to that complainants have suffered a great loss. Complainant made a complaint before Deputy Director Agriculture Officer, Karnal for inspection of the crop. The authorities concerned constituted a committee and inspected committee visited their fields on 16.06.2020 and prepared the inspection report and found that 10-15% seeds were local variety in the whole seeds and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsels for OPs, while reiterating the contents of written versions, have vehemently argued that the seed crop, like any other crop depends, apart from the seed quality, upon agro climatic conditions, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients, and effective use of fertilizers etc. Besides proper germination of seed, correct agricultural practices have to be followed. The complainant has sown other local variety seeds in the said musk melon field for gap filling. The OPs are not at all responsible for the alleged problem. The complainants have not followed recommended agriculture practices and have failed to apply recommended fertilizers and insecticides. He further argued that complainants have not sent seed sample to seed test laboratory for analysis and failed to produce seed testing report of laboratory as per section 38 (2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, which is mandatory. Seed purchased by the complainant was duly tested in the Quality Assurance Department of the OPs prior to its marketing and the said lot was found within the minimum prescribed Standards as per Seed Act. The purity of the seed was found to be 99.60% whereas other seeds inert matter and weed seeds to be 0%. The counsel for the OPs further argued that Mahyco Private Limited is running a in house R&D unit and is accredited to ISTA seed testing laboratory accreditation standard by ISTA in accordance with article 15(c) (15) of the article of the International Seed Testing Association. The official of the Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainants in the absence of OP. Hence said inspection report has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of both the parties.

12.           Complainants have alleged that there was mixing in the seeds purchased by them and suffered a huge loss. The onus to prove their version was relied upon the complainants but they have miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainants have failed to examine any other farmer who had also purchased the same variety seeds from the OPs having any complaint with regard to mixing of seeds and also to prove on record financial loss suffered due to seed supplied by the OPs.  Rather, OPs have placed on record seed testing report Ex.OP7 wherein it is clearly mentioned that in lot no. no.0000003038 germination was found 69%, the purity of the seed was found to be 99.60% whereas other seeds, inert matter and weed seeds to be 0%.

14.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:09.04.2024.                                                                   

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

                  (Vineet Kaushik)              (Dr. Suman Singh)

               Member                             Member