Haryana

Karnal

CC/461/2020

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sushil & Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Rana

21 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.461 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.27.10.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:21.03.2024

 

Raj Kumar son of Shri Baljit Singh, resident of Village Saga, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Sushil and Company, Shop No.410, Opposite Kisan Bhawan, Sonkra Road, Taraori, District Karnal, through its proprietor.

 

2.     Atlas Hybrid Seeds Company, Village Padhana, G.T. Road,Karnal, through authorized signatory.

                                                                         …..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 Sanjeev Rana, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Parveen Kumar Kamboj, counsel for OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is having 5 acres of agriculture land, situated at Village Sagga, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal. Complainant approached the OP No.1 and asked to give seeds of PR-126 Paddy for 5 acres, upon which the OP No.1 told the complainant that they are having best seeds of paddy PR-126 which is being produced and marked by the OP No.2, which is also their concern and will give more produce than the seeds of other company. On the assurance of OP No.1, the complainant purchased 2 bags of PR-126 10KG B/F Atlas Seeds, batch No.Oct-19-07-405-05, through invoice NO.10701 dated 16.05.2020 for a sum of Rs.1300/- from the OP No.1. Thereafter, complainant sown the paddy crop of PR-126 on 17.05.2020 in his field and thereafter on 22.06.2020 planted the same in his fields, but thereafter, in the month of September 2020, the complainant found that some of the paddy crop has been ripened and some of the paddy crop was still un-ripened. Consequently, the complainant approached the OPs and told about the situation, but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and rather threatened that they are not liable for the same and the complainant is free to take any action against them. Thereafter, complainant moved an application to Agriculture Department, Karnal, on 17.09.2020 upon which a team of department vide order No.4086-88 dated 18.09.2020 visited the fields of complainant on 25.09.2020 for inspection and found that 25% to 30% of seeds has been mixed in the seed of PR-126 by the manufacturer and paddy crop of PR-126 has been ripened and the other mixed one is still un-ripened and the complainant has been suffered a financial loss upto 20% to 25% and issued the inspection report No.09/2020/121. Due to act and conduct of OPs, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.20,000/- per acre, meaning thereby the complainant has suffered total loss of Rs.1,00,000/- besides mental pain, agony and harassment. After getting the report from the agriculture department, the complainant again approached the OPs and requested to compensate the complainant, but the OPs even did not listen the complainant and rather threatened that if he again came at their shop for demanding compensation, he will face dire consequences.  The act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, due to which the complainant suffered a lot of financial hardship, mental agony and distress. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that seed was not sent to the laboratory for the examinations, in the absence of chemical report it cannot be ascertained that product is the spurious one. It is pertinent to mention here that the variety of seed sold to the complainant is certified by Haryana Seed Certification Agency and the said seed was sold to various farmers, but there is no complaint from any corner regarding variety of the seeds. The complainant himself demanded the seeds paddy PR-126 of the said company and accordingly the same was given to him. In any case, there is no complaint whatsoever regarding quality of the said case. The germination of seeds depends on so many factors. The seed supplied to the complainant was of best quality and is certified by Haryana Seed Certification Agency and the Op No.1 has sold the said variety of seeds to various farmers and there is no complaint of any kind from any farmer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of jamabandi Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copies of Atlas Seeds Bags Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, copy of inspection report Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 08.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Robin Girdhar Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Rajbir Ex.OP1, copy of bill Ex.OP2, affidavit of Amit Kumar Ex.OP3, copy of bill Ex.OP4, affidavit of Surinder Ex.OP5, copy of bill Ex.OP6, affidavit of Munish Kumar Ex.OP7, copy of bill Ex.OP8, affidavit of Sohan Singh Ex.OP9, copy of bill Ex.OP10, copy of certificate of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency Ex.OP11, copy of register Ex.OP12, copy of certificate Ex.OP13 and closed the evidence on 06.10.2023 by suffering separate statement.

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

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased 2 bags of PR-126 10KG B/F Atlas Seeds, on 16.05.2020 for a sum of Rs.1300/- from the OP No.1 and sown the paddy crop in his field, but in the month of September 2020, the complainant found that some of the paddy crop has been ripened and some of the paddy crop was still un-ripened. The complainant approached the OP and told about the mixing of seed, but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Thereafter, complainant moved an application to Agriculture Department, Karnal, on 17.09.2020. The Committee has been constituted by Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, they inspected the spot and found that there is mixing in the field. Due to mixing, the complainant has suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant  has demanded loss suffered by him from the OP but OP has refused to pay the same, thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant had purchased and sown the said seed in 5 acres. There was no defect in quality of seed. Team of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal had inspected the fields of complainant in the absence of OPs, thus the report of Agriculture Department is not binding on the rights of the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, complainant purchased 10 KGs PR-126 seeds from the OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.1300/-. It is also admitted that OP No.1 is dealer and OP no.2 is the manufacturer of the said seed.

10.           Complainant has alleged that he has purchased paddy seed of PR-126 and there was mixing in the seed and due to mixing, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. Onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The case of the complainant is based on the inspection report Ex.C6, whereby Agriculture Department has observed that there is possibility of 20 to 25% of mixing of seeds and possibility of financial loss to the farmer due to mixing of seeds. In the said report, the Committee has only observed that there is possibility of financial loss due to mixing. But the complainant has failed to produce any record to ascertain that he had actually suffered financial loss. It is not the case of the complainant that produce of the complainant has sold at the low price. The complainant failed to examine any other farmers, who had purchased the seed of same batch and also had suffered financial loss due to mixing.

11.           On the other hand, as per the OPs, there were no mixing in the seed. To prove its version, they have tendered affidavits of farmers namely Rajbir Ex.OP1, Amit Kumar Ex.OP3, Surinder Ex.OP5, Munish Kumar Ex.OP7, Sohan Singh Ex.OP9, alongwith tax invoices Ex.OP2, Ex.OP4, Ex.OP6, Ex.OP8 and Ex.OP10. In the said affidavits, all the farmers have categorically stated that they have purchased PR-126 Oct-19-07-405-05 from M/s Sushil & Company and said seed is certified from Haryana Beej Certification Agency and there was no mixing. All the aforesaid farmers have purchased the seed of same batch and they found no mixing in the seed. However, it is the common practice of farmers to prepare the various types of nurseries of different varieties of seeds in the form of dividing the land in small parts like “kyaris”. Therefore, the possibility of alleged mixing on the hands of complainant and his labourer cannot be ruled out.    Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

12.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merits in the present complaint and deserves to be dismissed the 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.

 

Dated: 21.03.2024                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

           Member                          Member