Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1063/2016

Hariyana Seeds - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birbal Bhinda s/o Ramchandar jat - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Tantia

11 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1054 /2016

 

Haryana Seeds Plot No. 14 C HSIIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

Vs.

Suresh Kumar Bhinda s/o Ramchandra r/o village Mehrauli Tehsil Srimadhopur Distt. Sikar. & ors.

 

APPEAL NO: 1055/2016

 

Haryana Seeds Plot No. 14 C HSIIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

Vs.

Murlidhar r/o Tehsil Srimadhopur Distt. Sikar. & ors.

 

APPEAL NO: 1056/2016

 

Haryana Seeds Plot No. 14 C HSIIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

Vs.

Maliram r/o Tehsil Srimadhopur Distt. Sikar. & ors.

 

2

 

APPEAL NO: 1057/2016

 

Haryana Seeds Plot No. 14 C HSIIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

Vs.

Gordhan r/o Tehsil Srimadhopur Distt. Sikar. & ors.

 

APPEAL NO: 1058/2016

 

Haryana Seeds Plot No. 14 C HSIIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

Vs.

Prabhatiram r/o Tehsil Srimadhopur Distt. Sikar. & ors.

APPEAL NO: 1059/2016

 

Haryana Seeds Plot No. 14 C HSIIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

Vs.

Gopal r/o Tehsil Srimadhopur Distt. Sikar. & ors.

APPEAL NO: 1060/2016

 

Haryana Seeds Plot No. 14 C HSIIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa,

Haryana.

3

 

Vs.

Bhagtawar Singh r/o Tehsil Srimadhopur Distt. Sikar. & ors.

APPEAL NO: 1061/2016

 

Haryana Seeds Plot No. 14 C HSIIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

Vs.

Ramavtar r/o Tehsil Srimadhopur Distt. Sikar. & ors.

APPEAL NO: 1062/2016

 

Haryana Seeds Plot No. 14 C HSIIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

Vs.

Jhabarmal r/o Tehsil Srimadhopur Distt. Sikar. & ors.

APPEAL NO: 1063/2016

 

Haryana Seeds Plot No. 14 C HSIIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

Vs.

Birbal r/o Tehsil Srimadhopur Distt. Sikar. & ors.

 

 

4

 

APPEAL NO: 1064/2016

 

Haryana Seeds Plot No. 14 C HSIIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

Vs.

Sunaram r/o Tehsil Srimadhopur Distt. Sikar. & ors.

APPEAL NO: 1065/2016

 

Haryana Seeds Plot No. 14 C HSIIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

Vs.

Gopal r/o Tehsil Srimadhopur Distt. Sikar. & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 11.5.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Ajayraj Tantia counsel for the appellant

Mr.R.K.Sharma counsel for respondents no. 1

None present on behalf of respondent no.2

 

5

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

These matters involved common question of facts and law. Hence are decided by the common order. Facts are taken from Appeal No. 1054/2016.

 

The contention of the appellant is that seed was not defective one. PL 426 seed was sold to the consumer and there is no evidence to the effect that seed was of inferior or not of PL 426 quality and the report by Director Agriculture cannot be relied upon as it is ex-parte and he has not examined the seed and further more seeds have not been sent for laboratory test. His further contention is that in other complaints bearing no. 730/2013 Danaram Vs. Shri Balaji Beej Bhandar and complaint no. 758/2013 Ishwar Yadav Vs. Shriram Kisan Sewa Kendra on the similar facts complaints have been dismissed by the same District Forum. Hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that seed was of inferior quality. It has not given the required crop instead of six rows it germinated only into two rows which is

6

 

more than clear from the inspection report of Director Agriculture which cannot be disputed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that seeds were purchased vide Ex. 1. Lot number and quality has been referred in the same. The Forum below has relied upon the inspection report of Agriculture Department which is dated 10.4.2012 which says that crop is of inferior quality. Instead of 46 - 48 quintal farmer could get only 14-15 quintal crop and seed is not of PL 426 quality but admittedly the concerned authority has not seen the seed. Crop is only being seen and there cannot be any dispute about the fact that the quality of crop is not only depends upon the quality of seed but also on number of factors such as quality of soil, climate, maintaining etc. and here in the present case nothing has been shown that the seed was of inferior quality and the appellant has rightly relied upon II (2013) CPJ 617 (NC) Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company where the National Commission has held as under :

 

“ Indisputably the petitioner had not got the seed tested

7

 

 

from any laboratory as required under the provisions of section 13 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. He had also not moved an application before the concerned authorities for getting the seed of same batch number tested from any laboratory. Further the report of the Agriculture Department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of the field for associating them with the inspection.”

 

Further reliance has been placed on I (2009) CPJ 180 (NC) Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Vs. Parchuri Narayana, 2016 (1) CPR 371 (NC) Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. Ishwarbhai Baburao Thakare and judgment passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 939/2015 Ishwar Yadav Vs. M/s.Sriram Kisan Sewa Kendra and First Appeal No. 746/2016 Chetak Seeds Vs, Balchand Chaudhary and contention of the appellant seems sound that when seed has not been tested from any laboratory, it cannot be said that the seed was defective one or inferior quality or not of represented quality.

 

The contention of the respondent is that when seed has not been conserve by the farmer it was not possible for them to get it tested and reliance has been placed on II (2011) CPJ 13 (NC) Phi Seeds Ltd. Vs. Raghunatha Reddy, I (2004) CPJ 122

8

 

(NC) National Seeds Corporation Vs. M.Madhusudan Reddy where it has been held by the National Commission that when complainant had utilized all seeds and did not keep any sample for forwarding to laboratory, the report of Agriculture Department has rightly been relied upon but here in the present case the Agriculture Department has not given any report about the seed and as per the judgment passed by the National Commission in Banta Ram (supra) it was the duty of the consumer to get the seed of same batch number tested from the laboratory which has not been done by the respondent consumer.

 

The appellant has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1308/2005 Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Vs. Sadhu & ors. where the apex court has held that variation in crop could be because of other factors and here in the present case also the variation in the condition of crop could not be attributed to quality of seeds only when seeds have not been tested by any laboratory.

 

Further more the appellant has submitted the certificate given by Haryana State Seed Certificate Agency as regard to the seed of the same lot of number where class of seed has

9

 

been mentioned as certified and germination is 85%. This certificate shakes the total case of the consumer.

 

The appellant has also submitted Package of practices for crops of Punjab where it has been mentioned that for PL 426 expected crop is 14 quintal per acre and has rightly submitted that here in the present case as per inspection report of the Agriculture Department the sold seed is yielding 14-15 qunital crop hence, cannot be concluded that seed was of inferior quality or not of representative quality.

 

In view of the above the findings of the Forum below are perverse, appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 26.7.2016 is set aside.

 

(Nisha Gupta )

President

nm