Haryana

Karnal

CC/86/2015

Gurnam Singh S/o Jagir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/s Chaudhary Exports Producer & Distributor Of Foundation & Certified Seeds - Opp.Party(s)

B.P. Gupta

09 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.86 of 2015

                                                         Date of instt. 07.05.2015

                                                         Date of decision:09.04.2018

 

Gurnam Singh aged about 66 years son of Shri Jagir Singh, resident of village Kamalpur Gagian, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                                                                               

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1.M/s Chaudhary Exports Producer & Distributor of Foundation & Certified Seeds, village Sheikhpura Bangar, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal through its partner.

2. Parbhu Dayal, one of the partners of M/s Chaudhary Exports Producer & Distributor of Foundation & Certified Seeds, village Sheikhpura Bangar, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, resident of village Bibipur Jattan, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

3. Jaswinder Singh son of Shri Niranjan Singh, Partner M/s Chaudhary Exports Producer & Distributor of Foundation & Certified Seeds, village Sheikhpura Bangar, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, resident of ward no.10, Indri, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

4. Nasib Singh, 5. Ishwar Singh sons of Shri Hukam Chand, Partners M/s Chaudhary Exports Producer & District Distributor of Foundation & Certified Seeds, village Sheikhpura Bangar, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal residents of village Sheikhpura Bangar, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                         

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

                Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member

               

 

 Present  Shri B.P.Gupta Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri P.S.Bhati Adv. for OPs no.1 to 4.

                   OP no.5 exparte.

                  

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant has purchased 64 Kgs of paddy seed variety PR-122, at the rate of Rs.100/- per Kg. vide bill no.6/0107, 8/0107 and 21/0107, dated 8.5.2013 and paddy seed variety PR-121, vide bill no.6/0109 book no.114 dated 17.05.2011 from the OPs and has paid the total price of the seed amounting to Rs.6400/- in cash. It is alleged that OP no.1 assured about the quality of the same to be of good quality. It is also assured by the OP to the complainant that the seed so supplied of Punjab Agriculture University and is the genuine one. The complainant sown/planted the abovesaid paddy seed in the 14 acres of his land i.e. paddy seed PR-122 in land measuring 5 acres and PR-121 paddy seed in 9 acres of land, but the paddy seed of variety PR-122 was 55% which was planted in land measuring 5 acres of land whereas paddy seed of variety of PR-121, which was planted in 9 acres was completely spoiled. The seed of PR-121 and PR-122 supplied by the OPs was not genuine, adulterated and the same was of inferior quality. The OPs supplied the paddy seed PR-121  in the bag of Sandhu Seed Farm Mukatsar (Punjab) stating that only the bag is of Sandhu Seed Farm, but the seed containing in the bag of Punjab Agriculture University. It is further alleged that the produce of paddy from the paddy seed was much less than the produce of other farmers, who sown/planted the seed of other quality. Most of the plants were destroyed prior to their grown. Due to supply of inferior quality seed complainant suffered loss of Rs.50,000/- per acre i.e. total amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-Complainant approached the office of Block Agriculture Officer upon which the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Karnal formed a committee for inspection and the said committee visited the spot on 26.09.2013 and after inspection found 80% of paddy crop destroyed due to the deficiency and adulteration in the quality of seed PR-121 and submitted his report. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs so many times and requested for compensation but OPs always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and did not pay any compensation. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OPs no.1 to 4 appeared and filed their joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi and cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of the process of law and has been filed just to blackmail the OPs. On merits, it is submitted that the OPS no.1 to 4 purchased the bulk quantity of PR-121 and 122 seed from Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana and sold the same in the market and many farmers purchased the same from the OPs. None of the farmer has not been made any complaint regarding the said seed except the complainant. It is denied that seed of PR-1212 variety supplied by the OPs as well as seed of PR-122 was not genuine, adulterated and the same was supplied by the OPs to the complainant on false assurance that the seed was purchased from Agriculture University. It is also denied that the OPs supplied the paddy seed PR-121 in the bag of Sandhu Seed Farm Muktsar. It is further submitted that the complainant moved an application to Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal who formed/constituted a technical committee who visited the land of the complainant and inspected the field of the complainant and gave their report to the effect that the crop of the complainant has damaged due to false smeet disease and not due to any defect of the seed.” It is further submitted that the false smeet disease grown up due to defect in the soil and not of the seed. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.1 to 4 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.5 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 06.09.2017.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C38 and closed the evidence on 13.12.2017.

5.             On the other hand, OPs no.1 to 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Naseeb Singh Ex.OP1/1 and documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on 5.3.2018.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties  and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             The learned counsel for complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that complainant is an agriculturist having 14 acres of land. He further argued that OP no.1 is the producer and distributor of Foundation & certified seeds and OP no.2 to 5 are the partners of the OP no.1. He further argued that complainant has purchased 64 Kg of Paddy seed of variety PR-122 vide bill no. 6/0107, 8/0107 and 21/0107, dated 8.5.2013 and  PR-121, vide bill no.6/0109 dated 17.05.2011 from the OPs for Rs.6400/-. He further argued that OPs assured the complainant about good quality of the seeds and that the same was of Punjab Agriculture University. He further argued that the complainant planted PR-122 in 5 acres and PR-121 in 9 acres. He further argued that the produce of PR-122 in 5 acre was 55% whereas the crop of PR-121 in 9 acres was completely spoiled, which was due to the reason of mixing and poor quality of the seed and the seed was not genuine. He further argued that the complainant approached the Block Agriculture Officer upon which DDA, Karnal formed a committee and the Committee inspected the fields of the complainant on 26.09.2013 and found 80% of paddy crop was destroyed due to deficiency and adulteration in quality of seed PR-121 and submitted its report dated 26.09.2013. He further argued that the complainant suffered loss of Rs.50,000/- per acres and total Rs.5,00,000/-. He further argued that three Panchayat were held in this regard on 28.3.2014 , 5.4.2014 and 6.4.2014 but the grievances of the complainant was not resolved by the OPs. He further argued that the complainant obtained information from Punjab Agriculture University, according to which no seed had been purchased by the OPs from Punjab Agriculture University. He further argued that the copies of the bill of Punjab Agriculture University given by the OPs to the complainant did not bear the name of purchaser whereas the copy of same bills produced by the OPs on the file bear the name of OP no.1, which means the OPs have committed forgery and cheating with the complainant. He further argued that the complainant has filed a criminal complaint against the OPs in the Court of JMIC, Karnal in which the OPs have been summoned as an accused, vide order dated 14.09.2016.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs argued that OP no.1 is not the producer of the seed in question. The OPs no.1 to 4 purchased the seed of PR-121 and PR-122 in bulk quantity from the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana and sold the same to many farmers but none has made the complainant except the complainant. He further argued that as per the report of Committee constituted by DDA, Karnal the crop of PR-121 of the complainant has  been damaged due to False Smeet Disease and not due to any defect in the seed. He further argued that so far the crop of PR-122 is concerned, the complainant has admitted that the produce of PR-122 was very good and this fact is clear from complaint of complainant made to the police Ex.C-10/Ex.OP-3. He further argued that there was no deficiency on the part of the OPs.

9.             From the above submission of the parties, the main allegation of the complainant is that the OPs have sold the paddy seed of PR-121 and PR-122 of the poor quality and adulterated i.e. mixed with other seed. Therefore, the onus to prove this allegation was upon the complainant. The learned counsel for complainant referred the report dated 26.09.2013 Ex.C-8 of the Committee constituted by DDA, Karnal and stated that from this report, it is proved that the seed was of poor quality and adulterated.

10.            To prove his case, the complainant produced in his evidence documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C38 besides his affidavit. To prove the seed in question was of poor quality and adulterated, the learned counsel for complainant referred Ex.C-8 the report of the Committee constituted by the DDA, Karnal. On perusal of report Ex.C-8 it is found that it has been specifically mentioned at serial no.4 of the report that there was ‘nil%’ off type/other varieties plants. From this report it is clear that there was no mixing or adulteration in the seed of PR-121 variety sown in 9 acres by the complainant. So far the allegation regarding PR-122 sown in 5 acres is concerned, it has been admitted by the complainant in Ex.C-10/Ex.OP-3 that the seed PR-122 sown in 5 acres gave a very good produce (yield) because this seed was of Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. Therefore, the question of inferior quality or mixing/adulteration does not arise. In report Ex.C-8 it is further mentioned that “whole of the fields at Panicle stage, but there is appearance of False Smeet Disease approximately 80% in all the acres.” From this fact, it is clear that there was a False Smeet Diseases in the crop of the complainant which destroy the crop of the complainant approximately 80%. Therefore, the crop of the complainant was destroyed due to diseases and not due to the quality of the seed. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove that the paddy seeds of PR-121 and PR-122 purchased by him from the OPs was of poor quality and adulterated.

11.            Now coming to the next allegation of the complainant that the seeds were sold by the OPs on the assurance that the same were of Punjab Agriculture University but the same were not of the Punjab Agriculture University and the OPs had committed forgery and cheating with the complainant. In this regard the learned counsel for complainant stated that the complainant obtained the information under RTI Act and then came to know that no seed was sold by Punjab Agriculture University to the OPs and the OPs had wrongly gave assurance that the seed was of Punjab Agriculture University. He further stated that the bills of Punjab Agriculture University handover to the complainant by the OPs were not bear the name of the purchaser, whereas the bills produced by the OPs on the file bear the name of the purchaser inspite of the fact that the number of the bills was same. In this regard, it is mentioned here that as already stated above, the complainant has admitted in Ex.C-10 that the seeds of PR-122 gave very good produce because the same was of Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. So far the allegations regarding the bills issued by the Punjab Agriculture University relates to the name of the purchaser is concerned, in this regard it is pertinent to mention here that vide this allegation, the complainant raised the allegation of cheating and forgery against the OPs which cannot be tried by this Forum. Moreover, the complainant has filed a criminal complaint against the OPs in which the OPs have been summoned as accused by the court of Rajat Verma, JMIC, Karnal vide order dated 14.09.2016 as is clear from Ex.C-34. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint of the complainant regarding the allegation of forgery and cheating is not maintainable before this Forum.

12.            In view of the above discussions, we found no merits in the complaint and 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.

Announced

Dated: 09.04.2018

                                                                       

                                                                         President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                    (Anil Sharma)

                       Member