Haryana

Karnal

CC/416/2017

Shamsher - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Indian Seeds Indri - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

08 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 416 of 2017

                                                          Date of instt. 14.12.2017

                                                          Date of Decision 08.08.2019

 

Shamsher son of Shri Chatra, resident of village Kutail, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal.

                                                                                 …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. M/s Indian Seeds Indri, V.P.O. Muradgarh, District Karnal through its proprietor/authorized person.

2. M/s Aggarwal Enterprises, shop no.190-A, New Anaj Mandi, Karnal through its proprietor/authorized person.

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri S.S.Chauhan Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Rajesh Kumar Kamboj Advocate for OP no.1

                  Shri Vishal Goyal Advocate for OP no.2.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the complainant is and agriculturist by profession and earns his livelihood from that source. The complainant has purchased 50 Kg. of PR-121 paddy seed, vide bill no.091 dated 19.05.2017 from the OP no.2 and paid a sum of Rs.1350/- for the same. The said seed was prepared by the OP (opposite party) no.1 and sold by the OP no.2. OP no.2 assured that the seeds provided to the complainant are of very good quality and gave assurance of 30 Qtls. pr acre crop. After purchasing the abovesaid seeds from the OPs, the complainant prepared nursery of paddy PR-121 and with due care and caution. When the nursery was ready for plantation the same was planted in the fields as per the instruction of the OP. The complainant has planted his paddy crop in 13 acres of said nursery. The complainant sprayed the pesticides and fertilizers time to time in the said crop as per the instructions of the OPs thus in this way the complainant has spent more than Rs.20,000/- per acre. When the paddy crop was in swing in its development then it is very surprising for the complainant that the said paddy crop is mixed variety and not purely related to PR-121 variety. After seeing the situation of the paddy crop the complainant became stunt and surprised and immediately approached to the OP no.2 and thereafter the OP no.1 told about the situation of the paddy crop to the OPs. The OPs inspected the site and found that the said paddy crop is mixed variety and not purely related to PR-121 variety. But OPs did not care upon the grievance of the complainant and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other.

2.             Further, the complainant moved an application before the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal to inspect the agricultural land of complainant and report about the loss. On the said application, the technical officials of the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee and visited the fields of the complainant and thoroughly examined the paddy fields of the complainant on 04.10.2017 and the committee observed that there were 50% of PR-121 plants which were in riping stage and 50% off type/other variety plants, which were in reproductive stage. The seeds provided by the OPs to the complainant were of mixed and poor quality and due to the same the complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.70,000/- per acre.  After receiving the report from the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal the complainant approached the OPs and requested that the seeds provided by the OPs was of mixed quality and due to this the total crop of the complainant has destroyed. The complainant visited the OPs so many times and requested to compensate him on account of mixed and poor quality of seeds but OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to loucs standi; cause of action; maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that in the absence of laboratory test or analysis about the standard of seed as there was no tag or label was produced by the complainant which was very much mandatory and essential to verify the quality of seed which was sown by the complainant in his fields. In the absence of tag and label of the seed bags it was impossible and difficult to come at the conclusion that seed which was sown by the complainant in his fields was belonging to the OP no.1. Further, non-compliance of rule 23(A) (amended) of seeds Rules 1974 the present complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed qua the OP no.1. According to the provisions of Rule 23(A) (amended) of the Seeds Rule 1974 if a farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of crop due to defective quality of seeds of any notified kind of variety supplied to him the seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of un-used seeds to the extent possible from the complainant or establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the cause of failure of his crop by sending samples of I.O. to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seeds Testing Laboratory. Further, a direction issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana Panchkula to all the Deputy Director, Agriculture in the state vide memo no.52-70 dated 3.1.2002 regarding the inspection of farmer fields on receipt of a complaint regarding sale of poor quality seeds.  In view of this letter it is mandatory the inspection was taken in the present of the both the parties but in the present case while inspection of the field of the complainant, no representative of the OP no.1 has been associated, hence the report if any prepared in the absence of the representative of OP no.1 is having no legal value.

4.             Further, It is  pleaded that the complainant has not placed on file the certified copy of khasra girdawari of land measuring 69K-0M and registered lease agreement of 5 acres as alleged. It is further alleged that the complainant purchased 50 Kgs of PR-121 paddy seed, vide bill no.91 dated 19.05.2017 from the OP no.2 and paid Rs.1350/- for the same. It is further pleaded that as per the specification of the OP no.1, 08Kg seed is required for ever acre of land, in the present case it is admitted case of the complainant that he purchased 50 Kg of seed and from that seed nursery of only 6/1/2014 acres can be planted but with the said seed he has sown plants in 13 acres of land as such there is every possibility that the complainant mixed some other seed in the seed of the OP and then planted the same in the 13 acres of land.

5.             Further, it is pleaded that no information was ever given to the OP no.1 about the alleged inspection made by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal. Hence, the OP no.1 has no knowledge about the alleged inspection.  It is further pleaded that the Quality Inspector/expert has not associated in the inspecting team as said person was competent to gave clarification about the variety of the seeds sown in the fields of the complainant. The complainant has not suffered any kind of loss due to any fault on the part of the OP, rather the loss, if any has been suffered by the complainant due to his own negligent and careless act as he himself mixed some other seed in the seed purchased by him from the OP no.2. It is further pleaded that OP has supplied duly tested seed in the market and to the complainant and there was no mixing in the seed supplied by the OPs. It is emphatically denied that the OP supplied mix and poor quality of seed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 18.07.2019.

7.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Joginder Singh Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Akshat Garg  Ex.RW2/A, affidavit of Chander Hass Ex.RW3/A, affidavit of Ramesh Kumar Ex.RW4/A and documents Ex.R5 to Ex.R15 and closed the evidence on 29.07.2019.

8.             The case of the complainant is that he purchased paddy seeds quantity 50 kg, variety PR-121 on 19.05.2017 from the OP no.2, vide bill no.091 and the complainant sowing the said seed in 13 acres of land. When the abovesaid paddy crop was in growing stage then the complainant noticed that there was mixing in the seeds and he filed complaint before Agriculture Deputy Director, Karnal.  Deputy Director Agriculture constituted a committee in this regard and inspection committee visited the site on 04.10.2017 and prepared the inspection report. In the report the inspection committee clearly mentioned that after inspection it was observed that there were 50% of PR-121 plants which were in riping stage and 50% off type/other variety plants, which were in reproductive stage.

9.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that the present complaint is not maintainable in the absence of laboratory tests or analysis about the standard of seed as there was no tag or label or bag was produced by the complainant which was very much mandatory and essential to verify the quality of seed which was sown by the complainant in his fields. In the absence of tag and label or the seed bag it is impossible and difficult to come at the conclusion that seed which was sown by the complainant in his fields was belonging to the OP no.1.

10.             Further, non-compliance of rule 23(A) (amended) of seeds Rules 1974 the present complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed. According to the provisions of Rule 23(A) (amended) of the Seeds Rule 1974 if a farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of crop due to defective quality of seeds of any notified kind of variety supplied to him the seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of un-used seeds to the extent possible from the complainant or establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the cause of failure of his crop by sending samples of I.O. to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seeds Testing Laboratory. Further, a direction issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana Panchkula to all the Deputy Director, Agriculture in the state vide memo no.52-70 dated 3.1.2002 regarding the inspection of farmer fields on receipt of a complaint regarding sale of poor quality seeds.  In view of this letter it is mandatory the inspection was taken in the present of the both the parties but in the present case while inspection of the field of the complainant, no representative of the OPs has been associated, hence the report if any prepared in the absence of the representative of OPs is having no legal value.

11.             Further, that there was a very big lot of the seeds which has been produced and sold in the market to many farmers  but there is not even a single complaint regarding alleged dispute i.e. mixing of seed except the present complaint. as per version of the complainant he purchased seed weighing 50Kgs, as per the specification of the OP no.1, 08Kgs seed is required for ever acre of land but he has sown the same in 13 acres of land which is a patent mistake on the part of the complainant and there is probability of mixing on the part of the complainant himself.

12.            Admittedly, the complainant purchased the paddy seeds quantity 50 Kg, variety PR-121 on 19.05.2017 from the OP no.2, vide bill no.091. Complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture and Deputy Director Agriculture constituted a joint committee on 04.10.2017 and prepared his report (Ex.C2). In the report it is mentioned that the committee observed that the off type/other varieties plants, which were measured by random square meter method. Committee concluded that there were 50% of PR-121 plants which were in ripening stage and 50% off type/other varieties plants, which were in reproductive stage. Due to uneven ripening there may be huge loss in the paddy yield.

13.            The OPs have taken plea that no procedure as prescribed u/s 13 (1)(c) of the Act has been followed. The OPs are dealer and distributor of the seeds and as and when they had put their appearance before this Forum, similar application could be moved by them to send the purchased seeds to the accredited laboratory. In this regard, we want to refer 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.

14.            The allegations of the OPs are 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 no.1 had sold very big lot of seeds which had been produced and sold in the market to hundred of farmers, there is not even a single complaint in this regard except the present complaint.

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

16.            There is a force in the second plea taken by OPs that there is not even a single complaint regarding the alleged dispute i.e. mixing of the seed except the present complaint. OPs produced the affidavit of Chander Hass Ex.RW2/A and affidavit of Ramesh Kumar Ex.RW3/A,  other farmer who had also purchased the seed of same lot. In their affidavit they stated that they have purchased the PR-121 from the OP no.2 and sowing the same in their land. There is no complaint in the seed as the yield of the crop was of very good quality. Further, in the affidavit Ex.RW2/A Mr. Akshat Garg stated that he purchased PR-121 seed of paddy measuring 5 Qtl. From M/s Indian Seed, VPO Muradgarh, Indri having lot no.16-07-259-38. He sold the said seed to number of farmers including the complainant.  But no complaint has been received from any farmer except the present complainant. The initial onus to prove that the seeds were either mixed or spurious was on the complainant. The only evidence produced by the complainant regarding the defective seeds is the report of the District Horticulture Officer. There is no other evidence on record to show that the seeds produced by OP no.1 supplied by the buyer to the complainant through OP no.2 were either mixed or spurious. The complainant failed to discharge the onus placed on him. So, seeds sold to the complainant were either defective or spurious. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no probability of mixing in seed on the part of the OPs. Hence, it is well proved that seed sold by OPs was not mixed one at the time of selling of its.

17.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit 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: 08.08.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member