Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/305/2013

Mahinder Singh S/o Bashir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ved Parkash - Opp.Party(s)

None

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                             Complaint No. ..305  of 2013.

                                                                                             Date of institution: .30.4.2013.                                                                                                 Date of decision: 27.11.2015.

Mahinder Singh son of Bashir resident of village Gudha Tehsil Ladwa District Kurukshetra.    

 

                                                                                                                       ...Complainant

                                    Versus

 

  1. M/s Ved Parkash Sunil Kumar dealer inKhad, Spray Pump, Beej va Kidemaar Dawayian, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/ Partners.
  2. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited, Resham Bhawan, 78, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                                          …Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Salinder Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.     

              Sh. Vaibhav Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

              Sh. P.N.Ahuja, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.   

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Mahinder Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,40,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum on account of loss of crops/ produce and further to pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased 8 packets of hybrid Brinjal seeds from OP No.1 (Manufactured by OP No. 2) for an amount of Rs. 720/- vide Bill No. 6010 dated 1.4.2012.  Thereafter the complainant sowed the abovesaid Brinjal seed as per instructions by preparing the land properly and by providing proper water, pesticides etc. The said seed provided by the OP No.1 are not good seeds and did not give good yields and the complainant approached the OP No.1 and asked the OP No.1 to visit the spot and see the crops but he did not listen the request of complainant. Finding no alternative, the complainant filed an application to District Horticulture Officer, Kurukshetra for inspecting the crops of Brinjal (Bengan) for the inspection of crop and assessment of loss of said Brinjal crops. Thereafter, the Horticulture Officer/ experts visited the fields of the complainant on 12.9.2012 and found that there is loss of 85-90 percent to the crops and sent to the complainant vide memo No.1208 dated 21.9.2012. In this way the complainant has suffered loss of income of Rs. 2 lacs of one acre land in which the said seeds were sown as well as on account of Theka of Rs. 40,000/- of land by borrowing from other relatives etc.  As such, the complainant has to suffer a total loss to the tune of Rs. 4,40,000/- on account of produce of Brinjal, Theka of land, plantation of brinjal seeds, fertilizers, pesticides etc.  As such, OPs sold the sub standard seeds to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part.  Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No.1 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as that the seed manufactured by OP No.2 is of good quality and standard. The present complaint is based on false & flimsy grounds, which have caused a mental harassment, agony to OP No.1 and the same has been filed to defame reputation and goodwill of OP No.1 and as such the present complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date and on merit it has been alleged that the complainant had purchased the disputed product just to earn profit by processing it in his fields and have used the same as raw material. The complainant had purchased the disputed product for commercial use, as already accepted by him in the present complaint, for this reason the present complaint does not fulfill the main requirement of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and as such the same is not maintainable in this Hon’ble Forum. Even otherwise, if there exists any manufacturing defect, there is a special enactment i.e. “ The seeds Act 1969”  under which the complainant may avail his remedy hence the present complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.  Further, the report issued by the team of Horticulre department is also not the conclusive one, as according to the instructions issued by the Director, Horticulture, Haryana to all the District Horticulture Departments, for the spot inspection, there should be four members in the team in which two members should be the officials of Hortriculture Department, one scientist and one member from the concerned seed agency, whereas in the team formed for the spot inspection in the present complaint, there were three members only and all were from the Horticulture Department and there was not any scientist and member of the agency. As per report of the Agriculture Department, it is clear that the spot inspection was conducted without any demarcation of land from the official of the revenue department and moreover not any khasra or Klla numbers have been mentioned in the report by the inspecting team, so it is clear that inspecting team just to give undue benefit to the complainant have intentionally prepared the report in question. The complainant has concealed the material facts & true story and did not approach this Forum with clean hands, hence the present complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                     OP No.2 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is false, baseless and frivolous, complainant has not filed any lab report  u/s 13(1)(c ) in support of his complaint, the report dated 12.9.2012 issued by committee of Horticulture Department is vague and based on the false information given by complainant and the same is prepared without issuing notice of inspection to the OPs and the same is not having any value in the eye of law. It is also submitted that there is not a single word regarding quality of seeds, name of variety of brinjal, lot number, quantity of seed sown, area sown, yield received, khewat/rect./killa number, area sown, type of land, availability of water, spacing maintained, prevailing temperature, attack of pest and disease, fertilizers and pesticides dozes applied by the complainant are not mentioned in the report. Hence, the said report of committee has no evidentiary value. The normal Brinjal crop duration is 130-150 days, whereas the complainant’s field was visited by the team only after more than 135 days from the date of sowing. This clearly shows that the complainant has harvested/plucked good fruits and received good yield but he has suppressed the material facts to gain unlawful benefit from the OPs. The complainant has not informed how much yield received by him and on merit reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.                     As the complainant failed to lead any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order on 24.9.2015. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit and documents such as Bill dated 1.4.2012, Inspection report of field of Brinjal and  Copy of registered AD legal notice dated 12.10.2012, with the complaint in support of his complaint

6.                     On the other hand, OP No.1 has tendered into evidence  affidavit of Sunil Kumar Proprietor of M/s Ved Parkash Sunil Kumar as Annexure RX and documents such as, Photo copy of invoice No.6632 dated 27.3.2012 issued by Distributor Mohan Seed Company as Annexure RX/.1, and closed its evidence.  

7.                     OP No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mahendera Chavan S/o Marutrao Chavan, authorized signatory of OP No.2 Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. as Anenxure RW2/A and document such as photo copy of letter dated 24.5.2011 for renewal of recognition of in House R & D Unit as Annexure R2/1, Photo copy of International Seed Testing Association Certificate of Accreditation as Annexure R2/2 and Photo copy of suggestion for Brinjal Yield as Annexure R2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as OP No.1 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant purchased 8 packets of hybrid Brinjal seeds from OP No.1 (Manufactured by OP No. 2) for an amount of Rs. 720/- vide Bill No. 6010 dated 1.4.2012.  Thereafter the complainant sowed the abovesaid Brinjal seed as per instructions by preparing the land properly and by providing proper water, pesticides etc. The said seed provided by the OP No.1 are not good seeds and did not give good yields.  Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant moved an application to District Horticulture Officer, Kurukshetra for inspecting the crops of Brinjal (Bengan) for the inspection of crop and assessment of loss of said Brinjal crops. Thereafter, the Horticulture Officer/ experts visited the fields of the complainant and found that there is loss of 85-90 percent to the crops and receipt sent to the complainant vide memo No.1208 dated 21.9.2012. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that due to the supplying of substandard seed, the complainant has suffered a monetary loss and prayed for compensation and referred the case law titled as M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. Madhusudhan Reddy and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) page 838 (Supreme Court of India), wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 13(1) ( C) and 12- Seed purchased by Farmers from Seed Corporation- Seed found to be defective- Farmer unable to produce defective sample before Consumer Forum as entire seed was sown and no sample was retained- Complaint could not be rejected- To prove defect farmers could not be expected to keeping a sample before sowing-Defective sample otherwise proved by Horticulture and Agriculturist experts. 

10.                   Learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued that the report is nothing but it is a waste paper as no notice was ever given either to the manufacturer or to the dealer before inspecting the field of the complainant. There is also a mandatory provision under section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provisions. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further urged that as per report of the Horticulture Department, it is clear that before spot inspection of the field of complainant, no demarcation was conducted by the official of Revenue Department as no Khasra Number have been mentioned in the report by the inspecting team. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further urged that without demarcation of field, it cannot be stated as to which field the inspection report pertains. So, it is quite clear that the inspecting team has tried to give undue benefits to the complainant in their report and referred the case laws titled as Anand Singh Vs. Khurana Seed Store and another, 2007(1) CPC page 95 Haryana State Commission, Panchkula, Narender Kumar Versus M/s Arora Trading Company and others, 2007(2) CLT page 683 Haryana State Commission, Panchkula.

11.                   Learned counsel for the OP No.2 argued that complainant has not filed any expert report in support of his complaint, the report dated 12.9.2012 issued by committee is vague and based on the information given by complainant and the same is prepared without issuing notice of inspection to the OP No.2 and the same is without any scientific evidence scientific basis. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further argued that the said report dated 12.9.2012 does not speak about quality of seeds. There is not a single word regarding quality of seeds, name of variety of brinjal, lot number, quantity of seed sown, area sown, yield received, khewat/rect./killa number, area sown, type of land, availability of water, spacing maintained, prevailing temperature, attack of pest an disease, fertilizers an pesticides dozes applied by the complainant are not mentioned in the report. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further argued that normal Brinjal crop duration is 130-150 days, whereas the complainant’s field was visited by the team only after more than 135 days from the date of sowing. Learned counsel for OP No.2 further argued that the complainant has filed the present complaint after plucking the fruits and harvesting the entire crop in the market and earned the income by selling the same in the market and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12.                   It is not disputed that complainant had purchased 8 packets of brinjal seed (Manufactured by OP No. 2) for an amount of Rs. 720/- from the OP No.1 vide Bill No. 6010 dated 1.4.2012.   

13.                   The contention of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality and to prove his contention he placed the report of Agriculture Department.  

14.                   Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report minutely. From the perusal of this report, it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by three Horticulture officers, one  Horticulture Development Officer, Ladwa, Assistant Project Officer, Kurukshetra and District Horticulture Officer, Kurukshetra  whereas as per guidelines/instructions issued by Director of Horticulture Department for spot inspection there should be three officers out of this two officers from Horticulture Department and one should be scientist and one member of the concerned seed agency but in this case neither any scientist nor any representative from concerned seed company has been associated at the time of inspection of the field. Even no respectable person like Sarpacnh, Panch or Lumberdar or any neighborer of land has been joined by the inspecting team at the time of inspection of the field. Besides it, the said report is also not authenticate because the alleged inspection has been made by the officials of the Horticulture Department without getting the land identified from any official of the revenue department prior to spot inspection as no Killa Number or Khasra number has been mentioned in the report and as such it cannot be said with certainty as to which field the inspection report in question pertains. The same view has been held in case titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, IV (2013) CPJ page 186 National Commission, it has been held that Agriculture-Defective Seed-Growth of crop not satisfactory-Loss suffered-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed the complaint- State Commission accepted appeal and dismissed the complaint- Hence revision- When there is complaint by the farmers regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kender- Said inspection had not been followed by the Agriculture Department while giving their report- Factum of the complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or other evidence- No illegality or irregularity in impugned order. Revision dismissed.

15.                   There is a mandatory provision under section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provision nor moved any application to the concerned authority i.e. Horticulture Department or this Forum to get the sample from the OPs and send for analysis.  Further no any notice has been served upon the OPs prior to inspection of the field and thus the report in question prepared at the back of the OPs is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Without any expert evidence on the record as provided in section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act it cannot be said that seed sold to the complainants were adulterated and were of inferior quality. Reliance on this point can be taken from the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies 2007 (2) CLT page 683 and Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others 2013 Volume 2 page 616 National Commission wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that petitioner had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under provision of section 13(1)         ( C ) of the Consumer Protection Act  1986- He had also not moved an application before the concerned authority for getting seed of the same batch, number, tested from any laboratory- report of agriculture department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection- Inferior quality of seed not proved. The observations mentioned in the case laws titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies & Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others (supra) are fully applicable in the present case.

16.                   Apart from above noted facts, complainant has also failed to file any revenue record i.e. Fard Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari showing his ownership and cultivation of land or file any documentary evidence to prove that he has cultivated any land after taking from any other person on lease or any other way. Furthermore, inspection team has totally failed to explain the criteria for assessing the loss of 85-90% as mentioned in the report. In the absence of method adopted by the said team, it cannot be said that the criteria adopted by the said committee is correct. The complainant has totally failed to prove any loss by cogent evidence. So, after going through the above noted discussion and law we are of the considered view that the report has no value in the eyes of law and there is no other evidence on the file to prove that seed in question was of inferior quality.

17.                   Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 27.11.2015.          

                                                                              ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                              (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                               MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.