Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/367/2020

Inderpal Rana S/o Satpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Saini Brothers - Opp.Party(s)

V.K. Dudhla

30 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISISON, KURUKSHETRA

Complaint No. 367 of 2020

Date of institution: 12.10.2020

                                Date of decision: 30.04.2024

 

Inder Pal Rana son of Shri Sat Pal Singh, resident of VPO Lukhi, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

Versus

 

1.     M/s Saini Brothers, Opp. 2^nd Gate, New Anaj Mandi, Kurukshetra, through its proprietor.  

2.     Yamuna Seeds, Indri, Distt. Karnal, through its Managing Director.

…Opposite parties.

 

CORAM:    DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

NEELAM, MEMBER.

RAMESH KUMAR, MEMBER.

 

Present:   Shri V.K. Dudhla, Advocate for complainant.

Shri A.K. Sharma, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER

       

                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2.             Briefly stated, it is the case of the complainant that on 06.05.2020, complainant purchased 3 begs of PR-126 marka Yamuna Seed for a sum of Rs.2100/- i.e. Rs.700/-each and five bags of Super 777 Yamuna Seed marka for a sum of Rs.3000/-  i.e.600/-each. At the time of selling of said seeds, opposite parties have assured the complainant that the said seeds will give good yields and are of good quality. Complainant sowed the said seeds in 3 acres of land, but the said seeds could not gave proper  germination. Thereafter, complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to visit the field or to send the officer from Agricultural Department to see the fields, but it did not yield any fruitful result.  Then, complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Kurukshetra. The officials of the said Department visit at the spot and they found that the seed is 50% mixed and of sub-standard quality as some plants were found very low and some very high in length. As a result of which, complainant faced heavy loss as the said deed were not took their growth property and complainant suffered a loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. After that, A legal notice Ex.C-3 dated 14.02.2020 served upon the OPs, but it did not yield any fruitful result. Hence, this complaint. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- loss suffered by him due to supply of substandard seed by OP and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony, torture and harassment.

3.             On notice, OPs No.  1& 2 have appeared and filed their joint written statement, while taking the preliminary objections with respect to the locus standi, and maintainability etc. controverted all the material assertion of the complainant and contended specifically by pleading inter-alia that the inspection was conducted in the absence of the OPs.  It is also pertinent to mention here that as per Memo No. 62-70 dated 03.01.2002 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the state in which it is mentioned that the inspection of farmers fields on receipt of complaints should be conducted and the inspection of fields should have been conducted including the Scientist of C.C.S. Hisar Agriculture University. The present complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant did not compliance the provisions of Section13(I)C of the Consumer Protection Act, which is mandatory in nature. 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 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A and documents EX. C1 to Ex. C8 and closed the evidence on 25.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.  On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents R-1 TO R-5 ON 10.01.2024 and remaining evidence did not filed by the OP and the same has been closed by Court Order on ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­05.04.2024.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.             Shri V.K. Dudhla, Counsel for the complainant argued that on 06.05.2020, complainant purchased 3 begs of PR-126 marka Yamuna Seed for a sum of Rs.2100/- i.e. Rs.700/-each and five bags of Super 777 Yamuna Seed marka for a sum of Rs.3000/-  i.e.600/-each. At the time of selling of the said seeds, opposite parties have assured the complainant that the said seeds will give good yields and are of good quality. Complainant sowed the said seeds in 3 acres of land, but said seeds could not give proper germination. Thereafter, complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to visit the field or to send the officer from Agricultural Department to see the fields, but it did not yield any fruitful result.  It is further argued by the counsel of the complainant that complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Kurukshetra and the officials of the said Department visit at the spot and they found that the seed is 50% mixed and of sub-standard quality as some plants were found very low and some very high in length. As a result of which, complainant faced heavy loss as the said seed were not took their growth property and complainant suffered a loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that due notice was given to the opposite party regarding the instructions but opposite party did not appear at the spot. 

7.             On the other hand, Shri A.K. Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the OP has argued that the inspection was conducted in the absence of the OPs.  It is also argued by the opposite parties that as per Memo No. 62-70 dated 03.01.2002 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the state in which it is mentioned that the inspection of farmers fields on receipt of complaints should be conducted and the inspection of fields should have been conducted including the Scientist of C.C.S. Hisar Agriculture University and, therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before this Commission on the basis of incomplete/concocted inspection report. Learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the paddy seed of PR 126 had been certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency regarding germination and purety and the seed of PR 126 was verified by the Officials of the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and had been packed in their presence after conducting Primary and secondary operations of processing and of Quality Check of purety. Shri V.K. Dudhla, learned counsel for the complainant further argued that due notice was given to the ops regarding the instruction, but Ops did not appear at the spot. Shri A.K. Sharma, ld. counsel for the Ops has argued that he takes 60 days for the flouring process of the crop, but complainant got the inspection of his field within 55 days.

8.             Repeating his argument, Shri V.K. Dudhla, Advocate has further argued that inspection of field was done by the Inspecting Committee on 25.08.2020 by the joint team of Agriculture Department in Village Lukhi, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra in the field of Yashpal son of Mahender Singh in his 11 acre land regarding the standing crops. On being asked, he told that he had purchased 50kg seed of PR 126 variety belonging to Yamuna Seed Company, Indri. The Inspecting Committee were told by the complainant farmer that he had planted the seeds in his fields, but when the crop was ripe then due to mixing of seeds, proper growth of the crop was not caused due to which he has to face heavy loss.  The Inspecting Committee after inspecting obtain that there were two types of plants standing in the field of complainant out of which 50 per cent plants were higher than other 50 per cent plants, those plants which were had started blooming. It was found that by the Inspecting Committee that there was 50 per cent mixing seeds. When the shopkeeper was complained regarding the mixing of seed, then he told the farmer complainant that he shall take the inspection of his field after representing of the seed company. It has been further argued that by the OPs that Inspection Committee that since the stop of seed was nil. Hence, sample could not be taken by the Inspection Committee.

9.             The Inspection Committee has given its report, which is Ex. C-2. In this Inspection report Ex. C-2, it has been reported by the Inspection Committee/comprises of Senior officers/Senior Agriculture Officer, Development Officer, Quality control Inspector, who have reported that there is mixing of the seeds, some plants were higher and some were very small and there was mixing of 50 per cent seeds of inferior quality and superior quality in PR 126 quality of the seeds weighing 15 kg seeds. In view of the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by both the parties as well as inspection report Ex. C-2, it is well proved that opposite parties sold sub-standard seeds to the complainant due to which there was heavy loss of the crop of complainant. On this score, Rs.1,00,000/- along with 9% penal interest, are awarded to be paid to the complainant within 45 days from today till its realization by the OPs No. 1 & 2 for supply of sub-standard seed and for causing the loss of the crop of complainant. The Ops No. 1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for harassment and mental agony. The complaint is accepted with cost, which is assessed of Rs.11,000/-.

10.           In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open 30.04.2024

                                                                 (Dr. Neelima Shangla)            

                                                               President,

                                                               DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

(Neelam)                (Ramesh Kumar)

Member                   Member