Haryana

Karnal

CC/332/2018

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s PRO Seeds - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Sharma

03 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 332 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 26.11.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 03.07.2019

 

Suresh Kumar aged about 35 years son of Shri Dharam Singh resident of village Katlaheri, Tehsil Nissing District Karnal.

                                                                                 …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. M/s PRO Seeds, near Satsang Bhawan, Kaithal Road (Jail Road), Karnal, District Karnal.

2. Beeja Bawan Pusa Complex, New Delhi-110012, India (National Seeds Corporations Ltd.), through its Director.

3. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. NSC Chowk, Hansi Road, Karnal, District Karnal, through its Director.

                                                                        …..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 Kuldeep Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                   Opposite parties no.2 and 3 struck off.

                  Shri Shadi Ram Chauhan Advocate for OP no.1.

 

                   (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 has taken 5 acre land on lease in village Jundla District Karnal at the rate of Rs.52,000/- per acre for a period of one years. The complainant has purchased paddy seeds quantity 20 kg, variety PB-1509 on 01.05.2018 from the OP no.1, vide bill no.1306 and the complainant sowing the said seed in five acres of land. In this variety of paddy seed was mixing by mixed another paddy seeds. When the abovesaid paddy crop was in gaba position (before cutting the crop) then the complainant filed complaint before Agriculture Deputy Director, Karnal on 10.09.2018. Regarding this matter Deputy Director Agriculture constituted a joint committee on 14.09.2018 and inspection committee visited the site on 19.09.2018 alongwith complainant and in the presence of OP no.1 and therefore inspection report was prepared. In the report the inspection committee clearly mentioned that after inspection it was found that mixing variety of seeds in five acres land of farmer; on reading of random sample found that in land 57% plants of PB-1509 and 43% plants of another mixed variety and that main crop PB-1509 is ready for harvesting & mixing crop would be ready for harvesting after the lapse of 15 days such as the farmer be suffered a financial loss. The complainant wanted to sowing the vegetable crop after cutting the paddy crop of PB-1509 but this crop of vegetable could not be sowing in the land because the paddy crop was standing in the land i.e. land was not vacated in expected time. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; cause of action; maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has not suffered any kind of loss due to any fault on the part of the OP no.1. It is further pleaded 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. 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. It is further pleaded that 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, the brief facts of this letter is “it has been reported by the some seeds producing Distributors agent that field of complaints farmers are inspected by the office of the Agriculture Department without associating the representative of the concern seeds company.” 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 in the eyes of law.

3.             It is pertinent to mention here that there was a very big lot 72 quintal 40 Kg vide lot no.Oct.17.7.288-14 of the seeds which has been produced and sold in the market to more than 200 farms but there is not even a single complaint regarding alleged dispute i.e. mixing of seed except the present complaint. It is further pleaded that as per version of the complainant he purchased seed weighing 20Kgs which is meant for two acres of land but he has sown the same in 5 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.  Hence there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             The defence of OPs no.2 and 3 struck off by this Forum, vide order dated 18.3.2019.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 1.5.2019.

6.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurpreet Singh Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.RW1/B to Ex.RW1/D, ExR1 to Ex.R17 and closed the evidence on 26.6.2017.

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

8.             The case of the complainant is that he purchased paddy seeds quantity 20 kg, variety PB-1509 on 01.05.2018 from the OP, vide bill no.1306 and the complainant sowing the said seed in five acres of land. When the abovesaid paddy crop was in gaba position (before cutting the crop) then the complainant noticed that there was mixing in the seeds and he filed complaint before Agriculture Deputy Director, Karnal on 10.09.2018.  Deputy Director Agriculture constituted a joint committee on 14.09.2018 in this regard and inspection committee visited the site on 19.09.2018 alongwith complainant and in the presence of OP and therefore inspection report was prepared. In the report the inspection committee clearly mentioned that after inspection found that mixing variety of seeds in five acre land of farmer; on reading of random sample found that in land 57% plants of PB-1509 and 43% plants of another mixed variety and that main crop PB-1509 is ready for harvesting & mixing crop would be ready for harvesting after the lapse of 15 days such as the farmer be suffered a financial loss.

9.             On the other hand, the case of the OP no.1 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 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.

11.             Further, that there was a very big lot 72 quintal 40 Kg vide lot no.Oct.17.7.288-14 of the seeds which has been produced and sold in the market to more than 200 farms 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 20Kgs which is meant for two acres of land but he has sown the same in 5 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 20 Kg, variety PB-1509 on 1.5.2018 from the OP no.1, vide bill no.1306. Complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture and Deputy Director Agriculture constituted a joint committee on 14.09.2018 and prepared his report (Ex.C4). In the report it is mentioned that mixing variety of seeds in five acre land of farmer. On reading of random sample found that in land 57% plants of PB-1509 and 43% plants of another mixed variety and that main crop PB-1509 is ready for harvesting & mixing crop would be ready for harvesting after the lapse of 15 days such as the farmer be suffered a financial loss.

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 72 quintals 40 Kg lot no.Oct-17-7-288-14 of seeds which had been produced and sold in the market to more than 200 farmers, there is not even a single complaint in this regard.

15.            As discussed in above mentioned judgments, OP no.1 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 OP no.1 that there is not even a single complaint regarding the alleged dispute i.e. mixing of the seed except the present complaint. As per Ex.RW1/B total lot no.14 was sold to the 218 farmers including the complainant. Out of them, nine farmers have tendered their affidavits alongwith the purchased bills as Ex.R1 to Ex.R17 stating therein that there was no complaint in the seeds purchased by them in the same lot. Thus, we are of the considered view that there is no probability of mixing in seed on the part of the OP. Hence, it is well proved that seed sold by OP no.1 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: 03.07.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member