Haryana

Karnal

CC/13/2020

Daler Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Agriculture Research Institute - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Gureja

12 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No. 13 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.10.01.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 12.01.2022

 

Daler Singh aged about 35 years son of Surjit Singh resident of village Mubarkabad Tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal. (Aadhaar no.3872 7659 5543).

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI) NDRI Chowk, opposite Hotel Jewels, Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its Director.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri  Surinder Gureja, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Davinder Sharma, counsel for opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant had purchased 120 kg seed having HD-3086 Band from the OP i.e. 80Kg, vide invoice no.334910 Book no.8499 dated 23.10.2019 and 40Kg, vide invoice no.334934 book no.8499 dated 24.10.2019. For the said seed OP had charged Rs.4800/- from the complainant. The complainant had sown wheat seed in his land measuring three acres of land and paid Rs.12,000/-. The complainant is skilled farmer and he provided proper water, sprayed proper pesticides and insecticides in his field and spent Rs.5400/- on the DAP put in said three acres of land. He had also spent Rs.3000/- on the watering of the fields.  When the said wheat seed grown up then he was surprised and shocked to see that only 15-20% plants were grown up and remaining seed were not grown and then on 20.11.2019 the complainant moved a complaint to the Block Agriculture Officer, Gharaunda for visiting the site and inspecting his field. On 21.11.2019 the authorities concerned visit the fields of the complainant for the inspection of the site and after inspection of the fields reported that only 15% plants have grown up and that said seed is to be sown again. Thereafter, complainant moved an application of the OP. In the office of OP one Ram Niwas Yadav of the office of OP met the complainant and he admitted that this was the old seed due to which it has not germinated properly and now the department cannot to anything into the matter. Due to supply of the old seed/expired quality of seed the complainant has to suffer huge financial loss of Rs.1,50,000/- (i.e.50,000) per acre). Thereafter, complainant approached the OP and requested to make his loss good but earlier OP started postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to accede to the request of the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action and does not come under the definition of consumer. On merits, It is pleaded that the sample of seeds purchased by the complainant was not sent to the laboratory for testing as required under section 13(1)(c) (now 38(1)(c)) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that complainant has not mentioned anywhere in the complaint that as and when he has sown the seed in his fields and when he provided the water and sprayed the pesticides on the crop and how much duration of the crop at the time of its testing. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not mentioned that when he had sown the seed and what was the age of the crop at the time of inspection. It is further pleaded that OP was never called by the block agricultural officer at the time of visiting the site. No information had ever been given by the complainant to the OP regarding this fact. It is further pleaded that if the complainant has any testing report of the crop then the same is forged one and obtained by him with the connivance of the agriculture department. It is further pleaded that there are so many other reasons for poor germination of the crops such due to not properly sowing lack of proper mannuring and irrigation etc.  It is further pleaded that institute of the OP is a Government Institute and comes under the control of Ministry of Agriculture (Central Government of India) and also sold the different types of seeds to several farmers in every year after obtaining the testing report from the Central seeds Laboratory situated at New Delhi. It is denied that due to supply of old seeds/expired quality of seeds, complainant has to suffer huge financial loss of Rs.1,50,000/- per acres. It is further pleaded that the seeds sold by the office of the OP was sent to the Seeds Testing Laboratory ICAR-IARI New Delhi for its testing vide letter no.IARI/KNL/RNX/2019/790 dated 21.08.2019 and the test report was sent by the Laboratory of the OP after testing the said seeds on 06.09.2019 in which the range of germination of the seeds HD-3086 IARI Rabi 2017-2018 has been shown 87% i.e. normal and the same report was issued by the Government Laboratory, so it is totally wrong to say that the seeds sold by the OP to the complainant was expired quality. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill/invoice dated 25.10.2010 Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 23.10.2019 Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 04.12.2019 Ex.C3, enquiry report dated 22.11.2019 Ex.C4, copy of complaint dated 19.11.2019 Ex.C5, copy of Jamabandi Ex.C6, copy of labour receipt Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 09.3.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinod Kumar Pandita Ex.OP1/A, letter dated 20.08.2019 written by OP to Seeds Testing Laboratory ICAR-IARI New Delhi Ex.OP1, seed testing report dated 06.09.2019 Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 28.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

 

 

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased 120kg seeds having HD-3086 Brand from the OP and complainant sowing the said seed in his three acres of land. When the said seed was in growing stage, then the complainant noticed that only 15-20% plants were grown up and remaining seed were not grown and he filed complaint before Block Agriculture Officer, Gharaunda for inspection of the crop.  The authorities concerned constituted a committee and inspection committee visited the site on 21.11.2019 and prepared the inspection report. In the report the inspection committee clearly mentioned that after inspection it was observed that only 15% plants have grown up and fields of complainant is to be sown again. Hence, complainant prayed for allowing the complaint. Learned counsel for complainant relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op Ltd. (IFFCO) Versus Vijay Kumar and others 2019(1) CLT 234 and National Horticulture R&D Foundation Versus Sahebrao Jibhau Deware 2019(2) CLT 234.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that sample of seeds purchased by the complainant was not sent to the laboratory for testing as required under section 13(1)(c) (now 38(1)(c)) of the Consumer Protection Act. He further argued that complainant has not mentioned anywhere in the complaint that as and when he has sown the seed in his fields and when he provided the water and sprayed the pesticides on the crop and how much duration of the crop at the time of its testing. He further argued that complainant has not mentioned that what was the age of the crop at the time of inspection. OP was never called by the block agricultural officer at the time of inspection of the fields of the complainant.  He further argued that Seeds sold by the office of the OP was sent to the Seeds Testing Laboratory ICAR-IARI New Delhi for its testing vide letter no.IARI/KNL/RNX/2019/790 dated 21.08.2019 and the test report was sent by the Laboratory of the OP after testing the said seeds on 06.09.2019 in which the range of germination of the seeds HD-3086 IARI Rabi 2017-2018 has been shown 87% i.e. normal and the same report was issued by the Government Laboratory, so it is totally wrong to say that the seeds sold by the OP to the complainant was expired quality. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant purchased 120Kgs seeds of HD-3086 Brand from the OP, vide invoice no.334910 Ex.C2 dated 23.10.2019 and invoice no.334934 Ex.C1 dated 24.10.2019 amounting to Rs.4800/-. Complainant moved an application before Block Agriculture Officer, Gharaunda and Block Agriculture Officer, Gharuanda constituted a committee on 21.11.2019 and prepared his report Ex.C4. In the report it is mentioned that only 15% plants have grown up and fields of complainant is to be sown again.

11.           The OPs have taken plea that no procedure as prescribed u/s 13 (1)(c) ( now 38(1) (c)) of the Act has been followed. In this regard, we can rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Versus M.Madhusudan Reddy 2012(2) SCC 506 wherein the Hon’ble Court stated as follows:-

        “Majority of the farmers in the country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They  have no idea about the Seeds Act and the Rules framed there under and other legislations, like production of plant varieties and farmer’s Right Act, 2001. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural Department and Government agencies, like the appellant. Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop or less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier. In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. In some of the cases the respondents had categorically stated that they had sown the entire quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is naïve to blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the laboratory.”

In view of these findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court when majority of the farmers are illiterate and normally whatever seeds they purchased they sow it and the seed does not remain with them, in those circumstances, in case the OPs wanted the compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, they could also move the application but it was not done by them. There is another judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission II(2017) CPJ 549 (NC) “Kanta Kantha Rao Versus Y.Surya NMarayana, C Jeekar Hussain & Parnapalle Jakeer, P. Vanakata Raman. In that case also, it was observed that the petitioner herein did not file any application under section 13 (1) (c) to send the seeds to an appropriate laboratory for testing. Onus passes on the petitioner to prove that seeds, which were used, were not defective, which he had failed to do so and compensation was awarded. In Sahebroa Jibhau’s case (supra) Hon’ble National Commission held that plea of the OP that no samples of seeds were sent for analysis as mandated by the Section 13 (1)(c) of the Act-Held-In fact as per the Seeds Act the manufacturer is supposed to keep a small sample of each batch of seeds for a minimum period of time depending upon the nature of the seeds-Therefore, it is not understood as to why the Horticulture Foundation herein had not adhered to the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act which stipulates that the seeds be sent to a laboratory for testing-No application filed by the OP to sent the relevant seeds for testing and, therefore, contention of the OP that the complainants have to adhere to the provisions of said Section is totally unsustainable.

12.           The allegations of the OP is  that firstly the complainant did not send the sample of seed for testing in laboratory, which is mandatory as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Secondly, that the OP had sold very big lot of seed which seed sold to the complainant, there is not even a single complain in this regard.

13.           As discussed in above mentioned judgments, OP cannot take the shelter of the plea that complainant failed to comply the procedure as prescribed under section 13(1)(c) (now 38(1)( c) of the Act. OPs also failed to move application before the Commission for sending the sample of seed for testing in laboratory.

14.           There is a force in the second plea taken by OP that there is not even a single complaint regarding the alleged dispute i.e. defected seed except the present complaint. To prove its case OP has placed on record seed testing report Ex.OP2 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the range of germination of the seed i.e.HD-3086 IARI Rabi 2017-2018 has been shown 87% i.e. normal. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no probability of defect in seed on the part of the OP. Hence, it is well proved that seed sold by OP was not defected/expired at the time of selling of its.

15.            On the other hand, to prove his case complainant only produced the report of Block Agriculture Officer, Gharaunda Ex.C4 regarding the defective seed which prepared in the absence of the OP, hence it has no weightage. There is no other evidence on record to show that the seed sold by OP to the complainant was defected/expired one. Thus, complainant miserably failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.

16.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merits in the present 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: 12.01.2022

                                                                        President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member