Haryana

Karnal

CC/56/2020

Jagmal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aggarwal Seeds Store - Opp.Party(s)

Surjeet Singh Mandhan

26 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 56 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.23.01.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:26.05.2022

 

Jagmal Singh son of Shri Lal Singh, resident of village Labkari, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     M/s Aggarwal Seeds Store, near Punjab National Bank Radaur Road Ladwa, District Kurukshetra through its proprietor.

 

2.     Ajit Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 2^nd floor Tapdia Tersaterraces Adalt Road

        District Aurangabad (Maharashtra) Pin 431001 through its Managing Director.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

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 Surjeet Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    OP no.1 exparte (vide order dated 12.03.2022)

Shri Mukul Sharma, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (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 parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP no.2 is the manufacturer of 1509 paddy seeds and the OP no.1 deals in sale of seeds and Pesticides. The complainant has purchased 20 Kg of PB-1509, vide cash memo 8712 dated 27.05.2019 amounting to Rs.1100/-. OPs assured that they shall provide the seeds of good quality. After purchase the abovesaid seeds, the complainant prepared the nursery and when the nursery was ready thereafter the same was planted in the fields as per the norm and instructions of the OP. The said seed were planted in 2 acres. The complainant gave the pesticides and fertilizer in the said crops as per the norms and instructions of OPs and has spent more than Rs.15000/- per acres. When the paddy crop was ready to come out as half of paddy crop was not ready to come out and half of the paddy crop was come out. After seen the situation, complainant surprised and immediately approached the OP no.1 and told about the situation, OP no.1 made inspection and found that some of the paddy crop was ready to come out and some of the crop was not ready. Thereafter, complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, to inspect the field of the complainant and to report about the loss. Thereafter, Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee and visited the fields of the complainant and inspected the paddy crop and observed that the seed provided by the OP no.1 is not of PB 1509.  The officers of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal have assessed the loss to the tune of 35% to 40%. It is further averred that yield of the crops from 2 acres came out only 37 quintals only whereas the average yield paddy in near fields is approximately 24 quintals per acres. Due to supply of inferior quality seed, complainant suffered loss of Rs.52,391/-. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 22.11.2019 by which complainant requested to  make the payment of Rs.52391/- alongwith interest and compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony within 15 days, but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 did not appear despite service and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 12.03.2020 of this Commission.

3.              OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is denied that after purchasing the seed, complainant planted the seeds as per the instruction of the OP, in his nursery measuring two acres. It is further denied that the complainant used the pesticides and fertilizers on the said crops as the instructions of the OP. It is pleaded that the complainant moved an application before the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal. The inspection report dated 17.10.2019 might have been prepared behind the back of representative of the OP. Infact, the Government Officers are bound to inform the concerned manufacturer and the agent for inspecting the so called land of the complainant. It is further pleaded that even from the perusal of the inspection report, it is revealed that there is no Gut Number or Survey Number mentioned in the said report, similarly, the report does not enumerate or provide any details about the quality of seeds allegedly supplied to the complainant. It is further pleaded that the said report cannot be considered as a truth in support of the contentions of the complaint. The report as well as the complaint does not show the exact date of sowing the paddy seed. Therefore, it is denied that the quality of PB 1509 seeds are inferior according to said report. It is further pleaded that in the present complaint the complainant has not sent the seed for analysis nor has he stated anything with regard to the result of such analysis with regard to the quality of the seed. It is further pleaded that Government after due satisfaction only has given the consent to OP no.2 to sell its products into the market. None of the farmers lodged complain against the OP and further in respect of the yield of the crops. The defect in the seeds with regard to the genetic purity can only be decided on sending the alleged seed to the laboratory for testing the same for the percentage of purity as such, the complaint cannot be maintainable for deciding the genetic purity of the seed, in absence of report from the laboratory, nobody had come to the correct conclusion in respect of defect in the seed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of letter of agriculture department dated 17.10.2019 regarding inspection report Ex.C2, copy of surveyor report Ex.C3, copy of Form J Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipt Ex.C6, reply of legal notice Ex.C7, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 13.01.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Bhajanlal Regional Manager Ex.OP1, copy of special power of attorney Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 29.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

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

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased 20kg of PB-1509 and paid Rs.1100/- to the OP no.1 and complainant sowing the said seed in his two acres of land. When the said seed was in growing stage, then the complainant noticed that as half of paddy crop was not ready to come out and half of the paddy crop to come out and he filed complaint before Deputy Director Agriculture Officer, Karnal for inspection of the crop.  The authorities concerned constituted a committee and inspection committee visited the site on 11.10.2019 and prepared the inspection report. In the report the inspection committee has mentioned that on seeing the crop at first instance that the present growing crop is not of PB 1509 and there is probability of the loss to the extent of 35% to 40%. Hence, complainant prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently that the inspection report dated 17.10.2019 prepared behind the back of representative of the OP. Infact, the Government Officers are bound to inform the concerned manufacturer and the agent for inspecting the so called land of the complainant. He further argued that from the perusal of the inspection report, it is revealed that there is no Gut Number or Survey Number mentioned in the said report, similarly, the report does not enumerate or provide any details about the quality of seeds allegedly supplied to the complainant. He further argued that the said report cannot be considered as a truth in support of the contentions of the complaint. The report as well as the complaint does not show the exact date of sowing the paddy seed. It is denied that the quality of PB 1509 seeds are inferior according to said report. The defect in the seeds with regard to the genetic purity can only be decided on sending the alleged seed to the laboratory for testing the same for the percentage of purity as such, the complaint cannot be maintainable for deciding the genetic purity of the seed, in absence of report from the laboratory, nobody had come to the correct conclusion in respect of defect in the seed. Learned counsel for the OPs relied upon the authorities in case titled as Somnath Kashinath Ghodse Versus Vilas Gangaram Jattap and another MANU/QT/0026/2009; Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babu Ram MANU/CF/0028/2005 and American Hybrid Seeds and Anr. Versus Vijay Kumar Shankarrao and Anr. MANU/CF/0307/2005. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have considered duly the rival contentions of the parties.

11.                  It is evident from the cash memo Ex.C1 dated 27.05.2019 the complainant purchased 20Kgs seeds of PB-1509 from the OP no.1 and paid amounting to Rs.1100/-. Complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee on 11.10.2019 and prepared his report Ex.C3. In the said report it is mentioned that on seeing the crop, at first instance, the present growing crop is not of PB 1509 and there is probability of the loss to the extent of 35% to 40% to the farmer.                      

12.           The OP has taken a plea that the agriculture report prepared by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, in the absence of representative of the OPs, is not admissible in the eyes of law.  In this regard, we are fortified with the observations in case titled as Somnath Kashinath’s case (supra) wherein it is held that there no representative of seed producing company and representative of dealer. So, the inspection carried out on the field of the complainant was defective one. As per Government Resolution all committee members were not available and manufacturing company and dealer were not representing. Hence, in view of the observation of the abovesaid judgment, agriculture report produced by the complainant Ex.C3 regarding the defective seed which prepared in the absence of the OPs has no weightage

13.           The next plea taken by the OPs is that there is not even a single complaint regarding the alleged dispute i.e. defected seed except the present complaint. Complainant has also failed to examine any other farmer who had also purchased the same variety seeds from the OPs having any complaint with regard to inferior quality of seeds.

14.           The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant, but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant relied upon the inspection report Ex.C3. On perusal of the same, inspection committee has mention that there is probability of the loss to the extent of 35% to 40%. Hence, we are of the considered view that the inspection committee has not sure for loss in the fields of complainant. Moreover, said report is prepared without follow the due process, as per the notification of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dated 03.01.2002. Hence, plea taken by the OP is having force.

15.           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: 26.05.2022

 

                                                                President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member