Haryana

Karnal

CC/343/2016

Tajbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dahiya Seeds Corporation, New Anaj Mandi - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Kumar Sharma

12 Apr 2018

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No.343 of 2016

                                                      Date of instt. 08.11.2016

                                                      Date of decision:12.04.2018

 

Tejbir son of Shri Dariya Singh, resident of village Shekhpur Khalsa, Block Gharaunda, District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. M/s Dahiya Seeds Corporation, New Anaj Mandi, Gharaunda, Karnal, through its partner Jaswant, Mob: 98134-28832.

2. M/s Ujala Seeds, Rambha Chowk, Indri Road, Karnal, through its prop. Mr.Vinod, Mobile: 86074-36009.

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President    

                Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

               

 

 Present   Shri Parveen Kumar Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Vishal Goel Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER:                     

 

                         (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had purchased paddy seed of PR-114 make Ujjala  seed Company Batch no.336-7(1) weight about 30 kg. for a sum of Rs.1200/-, vide cash memo no.163 dated 17.05.2016 from the OP no.1. Thereafter, the complainant had prepared nursery of the said paddy seed in his fields and thereafter he planted the said paddy seeds PR-114 B.F. In his 8 acre agriculture land, but it is strange on the part of the OPs that they have sold the said paddy seeds PR-114 after mixing the other varieties and because of this reason the complainant had caused huge loss of Rs.5,00,000/-approximately. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs no.1 and 2 and told about the condition of the crop and on the request of complainant, the OPs no.1 and 2 inspected the fields of the complainant and after gone through the physical inspection the OPs have admitted their fault and felt sorry and also promised to compensate the complainant for his financial loss. After that complainant moved an application to C.M. window on 22.08.2016 and on the said application the office of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal constituted a technical committee and the office of the Deputy Director authorized the Block Agriculture Officer, Gharaunda, Karnal alongwith the Quality Control Inspector and Assistant Plant Protector Officer, Karnal were appointed for submitting the actual and factual report about the complaint of the complainant and thereafter as per the direction of the Deputy Director, Agriculture Karnal the officials of committee visited the fields of the complainant in the presence of OPs and committee opined in their report that 25% off type/ other varieties plants which were in grain formation/ tall/ dwarf/ panicle formation stage. Then complainant requested the OPs to compensate him for his loss but OPs did not pay any heed to his request. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 14.09.2016 in that regard but to no effect. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; complainant has not sent the seed for testing the same to the Laboratory and there is no Laboratory Report and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On merits, it is submitted that complainant purchased 30 Kg of paddy seeds marked with PR-114 having lot no.336 (7-1) manufactured by OP no.2 and sold by OP no.1. Complainant purchased seed for an amount of Rs.1200/- vide bill no.163 dated 17.5.2016. It is not admitted that complainant had prepared nursery in his fields with the said paddy seed and had planted paddy seed in his 8 acres agriculture land. It is denied by the OPs that they have sold paddy seeds PR-114 after mixing the other verities with the seed. In the certificate issued by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency, the germination is shown as 80% and other distinguishable varieties are shown as Nil, so there is no question regarding mixing of other varieties. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 24.08.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinod Proprietor Ujala Seeds Ex.OW1/A  and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O7, affidavit of Jaswant Singh Ex.OW2/A and document Ex.OW2/B, affidavit of Surjeet Ex.OW3/A and document Ex.OW3/B and Ex.OW3/c, affidavit of Gurjeet Singh EX.OW4/A and document Ex.OW4/B and closed the evidence on 12.03.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence available on the file.

6.             Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that complainant purchased paddy seed of PR-114 weight about 30 kg. for a sum of Rs.1200/-, vide cash memo no.163 dated 17.05.2016 from the OP no.1. The grievance of the complainant is that the said seed sold by the OP no.1 was of substandard quality and there was 25% loss of the total production of paddy crops due to that sub standard and mixed paddy seed. The complainant has placed on file the inspection Report of Agriculture Department Ex.C-6 whereby the committee constituted by Agriculture Department concluded that there was 25% off type/ other varieties plants which were in grain formation tall/dwarf/panicle formation stage. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs stated that the said inspection report Ex.C-6 was made at the back of the OPs and without any notice to the OPs. He further argued that the compliance of section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has not been complied with by the complainant. He further argued that the aforesaid seeds were released in the market by its manufacturer i.e. OP no.2, for its sale after going through proper tests in the laboratory, vide report Ex.O-1, vide which it is found that the purity of seed was 98.0%, germination 80%. Learned counsel for the OPs submitted a catena of authorities cited in 2010 (3) CLT page 504 (Punjab State Commission) titled as Jallandhar Singh Versus Tau Agrotech Private Ltd. & Another; 2010 (1) CLT page 186 (A.P. State Commission) titled as Chenna Rayudu Vs. Prabhat Agri. Biotech Ltd. & another: 2005(2) CPJ page 13 (SC) titled as Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Vs. Sadhu and another and 2010 (1) CPJ page 530 (Consumer Protection Judgments) titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op Ltd. Ram Swaroop.

7.             From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the seed in question was purchased by the complainant on 17.05.2016 vide bill Ex.C-7. Perusal of the bill Ex.C-7 shows that batch number of the seed is mentioned as 336-7(1) on that bill. The aforesaid seeds were released in the market by its manufacturer i.e. OP no.2, for its sale after going through proper tests in the laboratory. Further, the OPs have placed on the file certificate issued by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency Ex.O-1. As per this certificate, the purity of seed was 98.0%, germination 80%. The batch number mentioned in the bill dated 17.05.2016 is the same batch number as has been mentioned in the certificate issued by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency Ex.O-1. The authorities produced by the learned counsel for the OPs are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. So, the OPs have proved on the file that the seed sold to the complainant was duly tested one. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.

8.             Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no 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:12.04.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                            Member