Haryana

Sonipat

CC/66/2016

Rajesh Pahal S/o Balbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Agro Seeds Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Jitender Kumar

09 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.66 of 2016                                              Instituted on:08.03.2016

                                Date of order:09.08.2016

 

Rajersh Pahal son of Balbir, resident of village Gumar, tehsil Ganaur, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.Agro Seeds Centre Add. Bega road, near GT road, Ganaur, Sonepat.

2.Doctor Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 46, Sunder Nagar Lal Bagh (MBD Neopolis Mall) Ferozepur road, Ludhiana-142021 (Pb) India.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.Jitender Kumar   Advocate for complainant.

           Sh.RD Sharma,       Advocate for respondents.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased 20 pouches of 500 gm each  i.e. 10 Kg seeds of doctor seeds pvt. Ltd..  But the same were found of inferior quality as when the seeds were sown and crops of carrot grown, which grown with 6-7 sticks instead of 1 stick.  The complainant made a complaint to respondent no.1 in this regard, but of no use.  A letter was also written to the respondent no.2, but no action was taken by the company.  Thereafter, the complainant has made a complaint to the department of Horticulture Rai and the officials of the said department has inspected the carrot crops and found that the crops of carrot had grown with 6-7 sticks and about 60-65% carrot crops were useless and not for sale.  In this way, the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss, unnecessary mental agony and harassment  at the hands of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted and denied the fact that the carrot seeds were of inferior quality in any manner or 6/7 sticks of carrot were grown.  No complaint was ever given to the respondent no.1.  NO letter was written to the respondent no.2.  NO notice was given to the respondents while inspecting the fields of the complainant, whereas it was mandatory on the part of the inspecting team.  The report of Horticulture Officer is false and has been procured by the complainant in collusion with the Horticulture Development Officer.   The respondent no.1 has sold the same seed to various other farmers, but no complaint has been received because the said seed was of good quality.   Two persons namely Sumer Rajpur and Anil Antil has purchased the same seed from respondent no.1 and the seeds gave good crop.  They have submitted their affidavit in this regard.  The seed was of a good quality.   So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief or compensation.  There is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  Thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.        Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has purchased 20 pouches of 500 gm each  i.e. 10 Kg seeds of doctor seeds pvt. Ltd..  But the same were found of inferior quality as when the seeds were sown and crops of carrot grown, which grown with 6-7 sticks instead of 1 stick.  The complainant made a complaint to respondent no.1 in this regard, but of no use.  A letter was also written to the respondent no.2, but no action was taken by the company.  Thereafter, the complainant has made a complaint to the department of Horticulture Rai and the officials of the said department has inspected the carrot crops and found that the crops of carrot had grown with 6-7 sticks and about 60-65% carrot crops were useless and not for sale.  In this way, the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss, unnecessary mental agony and harassment  at the hands of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted and denied the fact that the carrot seeds were of inferior quality in any manner or 6/7 sticks of carrot were grown.  No complaint was ever given to the respondent no.1.  NO letter was written to the respondent no.2.  NO notice was given to the respondents while inspecting the fields of the complainant, whereas it was mandatory on the part of the inspecting team.  The report of Horticulture Officer is false and has been procured by the complainant in collusion with the Horticulture Development Officer.   The respondent no.1 has sold the same seed to various other farmers, but no complaint has been received because the said seed was of good quality.   Two persons namely Sumer Rajpur and Anil Antil has purchased the same seed from respondent no.1 and the seeds gave good crop.  They have submitted their affidavit in this regard.  The seed was of a good quality.   So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief or compensation.  There is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Shri Sumer Rajput son of Shri Ram Chander resident of village Roshanpur, tehsil Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat and Shri Anil Antil son of Ram Chander, resident of village Hasanpur, tehsil and distt. Sonepat have tendered their affidavits Ex.RW1/B and Ex.RW/1C respectively.  They have also placed on record their bills Ex.R3 and Ex.R2 respectively.  In their affidavits, both the above persons have deposed that on 21.8.2015 they have also purchased the carrot seed of batch no.DSP RR-57-15.  The germination of the carrot seed was very good and yield of the carrot seed was so good and they were totally satisfied with the carrot seed as they get good price of their yield.

          We have also perused the report of District Horticulture Officer, Rai dated 23.12.2015 in which they have mentioned that the carrot crop had grown with 6-7 sticks and about 60-65% of carrot crop is useless and not for sale.

          In the present case, three persons i.e. the complainant and two other persons namely Sumer Rajput son of Shri Ram Chander resident of village Roshanpur, tehsil Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat and Shri Anil Antil son of Ram Chander, resident of village Hasanpur, tehsil and distt. Sonepat have purchased the same quality and same batch of carrot seed on the same date i.e. 21.8.2015.  As per affidavits of Sumer Rajput and Anil Antil, the germination of the carrot seed was very good and yield of the carrot seed was so good and they were totally satisfied with the carrot seed as they get good price of their yield.  On the contrary, as per the complainant, the said carrot seed was of inferior and substandard quality as the carrot crop had grown with 6-7 sticks & about 60-65% of carrot crop is useless and not for sale and due to this, he has suffered a huge financial loss.

          We have perused the report of Distt. Horticulture Officer very carefully. There is no word in the said report against or about quality of seeds supplied and this officer has only reported that crops of carrot had grown with 6-7 sticks and about 60-65% carrot crops were useless and not for sale.

          The onus was on the complainant to prove that the seed purchased by him was defective, inferior or sub-standard in any manner and it was also for the complainant to move an application before this Forum for testing of the seed.  But no such application has ever been filed by the complainant during the pendency of the case.

          In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents has placed his reliance upon the ratio of law (II)2007 CPJ 148(NC) titled as Indo American Hybrid Seeds & Anr. Versus Vijaya Kumar Shankarao and another wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(r)-Seeds-Defective-Purchased from Soni Foods-Crop growth not upto expectations-Report of agricultural authorities indicating only 10% of crop properly developed-No word in report against or about quality of seeds supplied-Variation in yield dependent on external considerations like climate, pesticides etc.-No evidence on record indicating seeds to be non-standard quality-In absence of evidence, unfair trade practice not proved.”

          Further the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Commission, Hyderabad, in CPJ 2000(1) page 439 has held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 14(1)(d)-Defective seeds-Entire crop damaged-compensation claimed-seeds certified by recognized agency-Good germination-Loss of crop due to virus disease-Necessary precautions to prevent spreading of disease not taken-Other farmers planted same seeds in same area, yield in their lands very good-Complainant failed to prove loss of crop due to defective seeds-Held not entitled to compensation.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has also placed on record the document Ex.R4 to Ex.R7 i.e. Report on sale of carrot Rose Red Seeds,  Item Movement Analysis, Breeder certificate and Seed Analysis Report.  As per these documents, no complaint was received except Rajesh son of Balbir and as per seed analysis report, purify was 98%.

          Thus, we find force in the contentions raised and law cited & documents placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondents as discussed above and has come to the conclusion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case against the respondents since there is no cogent and convincing evidence on the file to prove that the seed was defective, inferior or sub-standard and the perusal of the report on which the complainant is relying upon, does not indicate any word against or about quality of seeds supplied by the respondents to the complainant. The quality of crop does not depend only upon the seed.  The complainant in support of his case has placed on record four documents i.e. bill dated 21.8.2015 Annexure C-1, forwarding letter dated 5.1.2016 issued by Distt. Horticulture Officer, Sonepat to the complainant Annexure C-2,  inspection report Annexure C-4 and plastic packing of Carrot Rose Red Annexure C-4.

          We have perused the inspection report very carefully.  But the inspecting team has not mentioned the date of sowing.  In this report, it is also no where mentioned by the inspecting team that they ever sent any notice to the respondents.   As per this report, it is clear that the germination of the carrot seed was correct.  From the side of the complainant, there is no report of water to prove its taste and other factors like climate, weather, nature of soil, fertilizer, pesticide also works for good yield of any crop.  As to what pesticide was used and what was its quantity, the complainant has not mentioned the same.  The complainant has also failed to produce any affidavit of the land owner from whom the complainant has taken the land on lease. 

          In the present case, two affidavits were tendered by Sumer Rajput and Anil Antil, who has supported the case of the respondents as on one date i.e. 21.8.2015 three different persons have purchased the same seed.  Two persons get good yield and price of the produce, but one person i.e. the present complainant alleged the same seed to be of inferior and substandard quality seed and it creates suspicion in the mind of this Forum. The complainant has failed to rebut the evidence led by the respondents in support of their case and thus, the same has gone unrebutted & unchallenged. Accordingly, it is held that the present complaint has no merit as the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case against the respondents and he has also failed to lead any cogent & convincing evidence in support of his case.  Thus, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.

         Accordingly, with these observations, findings and taking into consideration the above cited law, the present complaint in hand has no merit and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

         

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 09.08.2016