Haryana

StateCommission

A/1156/2016

SUNGRO SEEDS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHAGWAN SINGH ALIAS JAI BHAGWAN - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

11 Oct 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1156 of 2016

Date of Institution:        05.12.2016

Date of Decision :         11.10.2017

 

Sungro Seeds Limited Manish Chamber B.N. Block Local Shopping Centre, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-88 (India) through its Manager/Director.

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Bhagwan Singh alias Jai Bhagwan s/o Sh. Sheo Prasad, Caste Ahir, Resident of Bargaon, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Gobind Traders, New Mandi, Narnaul, Haryana, through its Proprietor/Manager.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.            

 

Argued by:          Shri Ajay Pathak, Advocate proxy for Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated October 26^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.76 of 2015.

2.                Complainant Bhagwan Singh alias Jai Bhagwan, is owner in possession of the agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.19 Khatoni No.22, measuring 143 Kanals – 9 Marlas qua 2/3^rd share and land comprised in Khewat No.20 Khatoni No.23 measuring 163 Kanals-14 Marlas being 391/6548 share comprised in copy of Jamabandi for the year 2011-12 situated within the revenue estate of Village Bargaon, District Narnaul. The complainant in two acres land out of the above mentioned land in his possession had sown Musk Melon crop in the year 2015. The complainant had purchased 75 packets containing musk melon seeds weighing 10 grams each packet from Gobind Traders-Opposite Party No.1 on March 30^th 2015 on payment of Rs.7500/- vide receipt Annexure C-6. Five packets containing 10 grams each musk melon seeds were purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 on March 26^th, 2015 on payment of Rs.500/- vide receipt Annexure C-7. The seeds were manufactured by Sengro Seeds Private Limited-Opposite Party No.2. The complainant had sown musk melon seeds after proper cultivation, using fertilizer and as per other instructions of the opposite parties. The complainant was assured that the seeds being supplied to the complainant were of very good variety and size of musk melon would be as shown on the packets containing the seeds. The complainant, later on found that the seeds supplied to the complainant were not of good quality. Size of musk melon was very small and yield of the musk melon crop was very poor. All it happened due to poor quality of seeds supplied to the complainant. The complainant had to spend an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of cultivation, providing fertilizer, pesticides and seeds  etc. The complainant also had to suffer monetary losses to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- including loss on account of poor quality and yield of crop.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of amount spent for cultivation of the land as well as for providing fertilizer, seeds etc; an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs on account of loss of crop and an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony.

4.                The opposite parties No.1 and 2 have taken plea in their written version that at the time of sale of seeds, the complainant was specifically told that production of the musk melon would take 75 days from the date of germination but the complainant preferred to file his complaint within 55 days of germination mentioning that size of the musk melon was too small and colour was also not yellow. On the complaint of the complainant, Director Sales Executive of the company inspected the fields of the complainant and found that 20 days were short in giving production as production time of the musk melon seeds was 75 days of its germination. Moreover, the complainant did not provide required fertilizer. He was advised to provide more zinc and potash fertilizer. The opposite parties have prayed that the complainant is not entitled to receive any amount as compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. 

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated October 26^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the Opposite Party No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation and to pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.   

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated October 26^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the opposite party No.2 has filed the present appeal bearing No.1156 of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint.  

8.                We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.  None has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service.

9.                During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the complainant Bhagwan Singh alias Jai Bhagwan is the owner in possession of the agricultural land qua his share mentioned in detail in paragraph No.2 of the complaint and that the complainant had sown musk melon seeds in his two acres agricultural land situated within the revenue estate of Village Bargaon. It is evident from the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2011-12 (Exhibit C-5) also. It is also admitted fact that the complainant purchased 80 packets each packet containing 10 grams musk melon seeds from the opposite party No.1 – Gobind Traders, being dealer of manufacturer-Opposite Party No.2, for a consideration of Rs.8,000/-. It is evident from the receipts dated March 26^th, 2015 (Annexure C-7) and March 30^th, 2015 (Annexure C-6) also. The complainant has taken plea that as advised by the opposite party No.1, he got cultivated his land five times and spent the amount mentioned in earlier paragraph of this order, for providing fertilizer, pesticides etc.

10.              As per version of the complainant he was assured by the opposite parties that the complainant shall be able to increase his yield and quality of the yield by using musk melon seeds purchased from the opposite party No.1. The opposite parties in their written version have denied that they had given any such assurance to the complainant. As per version of the opposite parties, seeds purchased by the complainant were of good quality. From the pleadings and documents on the file it does not appear to be the case of the complainant that there was any serious problem regarding germination of the seeds. The main grievance of the complainant is that the size of the musk melon was very small in comparison to the size of the melon shown on the packets containing seeds purchased by the complainant. The yield and quality of the melon was very poor and the complainant had to suffer monetary losses on account of less yield and as he had to spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- for purchasing seeds, fertilizer, cultivation and irrigation facilities etc. The complainant in this case could not produce any documentary evidence regarding the amount spent for providing fertilizer, pesticides and the amount spent for cultivation of the land. Merely on the basis of statement of the complainant in his affidavit, findings cannot be given that the complainant might have spent so much amount for preparation of his land for cultivation of his land, for providing fertilizer and pesticides etc. Anyhow findings can be given that the complainant certainly might have spent some amount for cultivation of land and for irrigating the land and for providing fertilizer etc also. The complainant did not make any effort for obtaining expert report to the effect that the seeds provided to the complainant were of poor quality and poor quality of the crop was due to sub-standard and poor quality of the seeds.

11.              From the pleadings and evidence on the file it is almost clear that there was no problem regarding germination of the seeds. The size of the musk melon as well as yield of the crop does not depend merely on the quality of the seeds. There may be so many reasons of poor germination, poor yield and poor quality of the crop. Germination as well as quality and quantity of yield depends upon the climatic conditions, nature of soil, proper irrigation and use of manure, fertilizer and pesticides.  In these circumstances findings can be given that cause of poor quality and quantity of yield may not be due to quality of seeds but may be due to other reasons also, as mentioned above. On this point of controversy, a decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case Banta Ram versus Jai Bharat Beej Co. and anr., Revision Petition No.506 of 2013 decided on May 17^th, 2013, by Hon’ble National Commission also supports the version of the opposite parties. The complainant himself has taken plea that five packets containing seeds were available with him after sowing seeds also but he did not prefer to obtain expert report from a scientist of agriculture department.

12.              In this case, the complainant has taken plea that size of musk melon was very small and colour of the melon was also not yellow. This fact also cannot be taken lightly that the musk melon crop takes more than 75 days from the date of germination. The seeds were purchased by the complainant on March 30^th, 2015 and complaint was filed by the complainant in the District Forum on June 08^th, 2015 i.e. after 55 days as the seeds were sown on April 15^th, 2015.  Considering request of the complainant in writing on June 08^th, 2015, Dr. Sube Singh, Senior Scientist, Krishi Gyan Kendra, Mahendergarh was appointed as Local Commissioner to ascertain regarding quality of the seeds and variety of the melon and to submit his report on or before July 14^th, 2015. The fee of the Local Commissioner amounting to Rs.2,000/- was to be paid by the complainant.

13.              In the order-sheet of the complaint case, after June 08^th, 2015, nothing is mentioned regarding spot inspection or report of the Local Commissioner. It appears that the complainant also thereafter did not pursue the matter and even did not request the learned District Forum to ask the Local Commissioner to submit his report. Record also does not indicate that the Local Commissioner was properly informed regarding his appointment as Local Commissioner. The decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Yaaganti Seeds Private Limited vs. Manchala Komuraiah, 2015(II) CLT 536, as discussed in the impugned order of the District Forum is not of much help to the complainant in this case, as five packets of the musk melon seeds purchased from the opposite parties were with the complainant and the complainant had opportunity to obtain expert report regarding quality of the seeds.

14.              In this case, the complainant has grievance only regarding poor yield and poor quality of the muskmelon crop but the complainant did not mention specifically in his complaint or affidavit regarding total produce of muskmelon from his two acres of land. it may be a case of poor yield or poor quality but in that situation also for assessment of the compensation, the complainant should have mentioned in clear words that how much produce of muskmelon crop could be possible from this two acres of land in that season. Moreover, findings can also be given regarding poor yield after having knowledge that how much produce could be possible in that crop season. In the absence of any such plea and rather concealment on the part of the complainant certainly findings cannot be given that it was a case of poor yield or poor quality. Moreover, it appears that the complainant himself was not having complete knowledge regarding production of the muskmelon crop during that season because he preferred to file the present complaint just after 55 days from the date of sowing crop knowing fully well that the muskmelon crop takes at least 75 days for production. Moreover, this fact also cannot be taken lightly that the complainant caused delay in sowing the muskmelon crop. Generally the muskmelon crop is sown in the last fortnight of the month of February.

15.              Keeping in mind all the circumstances, findings can be safely given that the complainant failed to prove that it was a case of poor production or poor quality of muskmelon crop. The complainant also failed to prove that seeds supplied to the complainant were of poor quality and sub-standard or that poor quality and sub-standard of the seeds was the cause of poor yield and quality of the muskmelon.

16.              As per discussions above in detail, we are of the view that the learned District Forum has committed an error while passing the impugned order in favour of the complainant. The impugned order dated October 26^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-opposite party is accepted, the impugned order dated October 26^th, 2016 is hereby set aside and the complaint stands dismissed.

17.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant-opposite party No.2 against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 11.10.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL