Haryana

Karnal

CC/313/2015

Raj Kumar S/o Hazari Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Karamveer Mandhan

29 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.313 of 2015

                                                         Date of instt. 17.12.2015

                                                         Date of decision:29.09.2017

 

Raj Kumar, aged 55 years son f Shri Hazari Singh, resident of village and Khukhni, tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1.M/s Aggarwal Seed Store, near Punjab National Bank, Radaur Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra through its prop./partner.

2. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, Sy. No.48/1, At & PO Surpur, Tal. Idar, Sabarkantha District Gujrat (3833430), through its Authorized Signatory.

                                         

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Ms. Veena Rani ………..Presiding Member.

              Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

               

 

 Present  Shri Karambir Mandhan Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Mandeep Tyagi Adv. for opposite party no.1.

                Shri Vishal Goyal Advocate for opposite party no.2.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that he purchased 50 kg. seed Shalimar NP-121 @ Rs.100/- per kg. vide cash memo no.1916, dated 22.6.2015 from opposite party no.1 and paid Rs.2500/-.  Opposite party no.2 was the manufacturer of the said seed. At the time of delivery of the said seed opposite party no.1 assured him that there was no complaint in the said seed and the same is duly approved by the various agencies. He sowed the said seed in 5 acres of land by using the single variety of seed NP-121. He cared the land/crop for good production. The paddy crop started growing, on seeing the same, he was astonished to note that the paddy being grown in the field is growing in different kind of plants and that the growth of the plants is different. He complained to opposite party no.1, but the matter was postponed on one pretext or the other. Then, he moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal, who constituted a Technical Committee to inspect his fields. His fields were inspected by the Technical Committee on 18.09.2015 and it was observed that in all the five acres there was mixing of seed to the extent of “50% off type/other varieties plants which were in grain formation/tall/dwarf/panicle formation stage”. Thus, the opposite parties supplied inferior, sub standard and mixed quality of seed, due to which he suffered huge loss. He requested the opposite parties to compensate him, but they refused to accede to his request. Then he served a legal notice dated 27.11.2015 upon the opposite parties in that regard, but it did not yield any result. Hence there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, due to which he suffered mental pain and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not sent the seed for testing the same to the Laboratory and there was no Laboratory Report; that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and that the complaint is bad for non-compliance of provisions of section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act.

                On merits, it has been admitted that the seed NP-121 manufactured and marketed by opposite party is good in yield and there was no complaint regarding the same. It has further been submitted that no other consumer complaint about the said seed has been filed by any person. Complainant did not supply any documents to the opposite party, regarding the receipt as well as alleged report of the alleged technical committee and other relevant documents and information pertaining to the land of complainant. The Technical Committee was not constituted as per the directions issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana vide his letter memo no.52 to 70/TA (SS) dated 3.1.2002, Panchkula and with reference to the D.O. letter no.HSDC 15212 dated 11.12.2001 as per the direction of the Director Agriculture, Haryana it is mandatory to associate two officers from the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU. It has further been submitted that the complainant failed to retain the sample of the crop for getting tested in the Government Laboratory so that it could not ascertained that there was any defect in the seed. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW/1 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.

4.             On the other hand, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Chahal, Senior Marketing Officer Haryana Ex.OP1/A.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The complainant had purchased 50 kilograms seed Shalimar NP-121 from opposite party no.1 for Rs.2500/- vide bill Ex.C2 on 22.06.2015. He had sown the said seed in his agricultural land measuring 5 acres, but when the crop grew up it was found that there were Mixing plants in the crop. He got his field inspected from the team constituted by Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal, who submitted report, the copy of which is Ex.C3. Committee concluded that was 50% off type/other varieties plants which were in grain formation/tall/dwarf/panicle formation stage.

7.             Learned counsel for the opposite parties has laid emphasis on the contention that the complainant did not keep sample of the seed purchased by him for getting tested the same from some authorized laboratory. No notice of the inspection of the field of the complainant, by the team constituted by Deputy Director of Agriculture Karnal was given to the opposite parties, as per instructions issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana. No written complaint was made by the complainant to the opposite parties regarding inferior quality of the seed even after, the report of the team of Agriculture Department till the crop existed in the field. Therefore, the report of the team alone cannot be formed the basis for arriving at the conclusion that the seed sold by opposite party no.1 to the complainant was of inferior quality and the same contained mixed seed.

8.             The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the opposite parties cannot be accepted under the circumstances of the present case. The complainant had purchased seed from opposite party no.1 on 22.06.2015. The crop in his field was inspected by the team of Agriculture Department on 18.09.2015. The said team was constituted by Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal on the application moved in that regard by the complainant. As per the report Ex.C3 there was mixing in the seed 50% off type/other varieties plants which were in grain formation/tall/dwarf/panicle formation stage.

9.             Undoubtedly, no notice was given to the opposite parties by the complainant or the inspection team before inspecting the field but the report cannot be discarded merely on this ground. The report was prepared by Deputy Director of Agriculture Karnal, and the same was countered signed by three officers of Agriculture Department. There could be no reason for these Government Officers to give false report regarding the crop existing in the field of the complainant. Even otherwise, there is no material on record to rebut the said report. Thus, from the evidence on record it is established that the field of the complainant in which he had sown the NP-121 seed purchased from opposite party no.1, was found 50% of other variety.  The allegation of the complainant that he approached opposite party no.1 complaining about the quality of the seed, finds support from his affidavit. Even otherwise, a farmer, who is going to suffer loss on account of inferior quality of seed or mixing of other variety seeds, would certainly complain to the person from whom the seed was purchased. Thus, the opposite party no.1 was having opportunity to inspect the field of the complainant and report about the existing condition of the crop to opposite party no.2, who could also get inspected the crop from the experts, to find out as to whether there was any mixing in the seed or not. However, no step was taken by the opposite parties. Therefore, no reason to ignore the report of Technical Experts of Agriculture Department.

10.           In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, it is established that there was mixing of other varieties in the paddy seed sold by opposite party no.1 to the complainant and mixing was found to the extent of 50%. However, the report of Technical Experts of Agriculture Department does not indicate that other varieties plants had different timings of maturity than the plants of NP-121. This fact cannot be ignored that due to mixing of other varieties seed the yield and quality of the paddy would have been certainly affected upto some extent and such mixed paddy crop could not fetch the same market price as NP-121 could fetch. Under such circumstances, the complainant must have suffered loss and the opposite parties are bound to compensate him, as the loss due to sale of mixed variety seed. The complainant had planted paddy in five acres of land from the seed of NP-121 purchased by him from opposite party no.1, which was prepared and packed by opposite party no.2. Looking into the facts and circumstances, it would be reasonable to assess the loss of Rs.4000/- per acre i.e. total Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

11.           As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant  as compensation for loss due to mixed seed of paddy supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:29.9.2017

                                                                (Veena Rani)

                                                                Presiding Member

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                        (Anil Sharma)

                          Member