Haryana

Ambala

CC/448/2022

KARAM CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ZIMIDARA KHAD STORE. - Opp.Party(s)

LAKHWINDER KUMAR.

23 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	448 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	01.12.2022
Date of decision	:	23.07.2024

 

Karam Chand aged 71 years son of Shri Mehar Singh, resident of Village Ganganpur, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, State Haryana.

……. Complainant

Vs.

 

1.  M/s Zimidara Khad Store, Adoya Road, Barara Tehsil Barara, District Ambala through its Proprietor.
2. Synergene Crop Innovations, Regd. Office MIG-352/1, Flat No.203, Sri Krishna Enclave, Balajinagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072 (AP) through its Authorized Signatory.

….…. Opposite Parties

 

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                              Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri Randhir Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                              Shri Ashish Sareen, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.6,85,500/- as compensation for the loss suffered due to defective seeds sold/supplied by the OPs.  
2. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
3. To pay Rs.11000/- as cost of litigation.                                                                                                                                                                 OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.           The facts in brief are that OP No.2 is running the business in the name and style of Synergene Crop Innovations and is the manufacturer/ producer of the seeds and selling/distributing through various dealer including OP No.1. Thus, the OPs are dealing in producing and selling the seeds in collaboration with each other. On 17.01.2022, the complainant  purchased 5 bags of 2 KG each of HD sunflower seed of UNNAT 057 from OP No.1 against invoice No. 2778 dated 17.01.2022 for total amount of Rs.15000/-.  OP No.1 assured the complainant that the sunflower seeds are of best quality and will give best yield. On this assurance, the complainant sowed the seeds in his land assuming it of good quality. Before sowing the said seeds, the complainant prepared his land plughing by the tractor, watering, using of pesticides etc and had sown the seeds in his field during 22/23.02.2022. Thereafter, complainant had spent huge amount for irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides and labour work etc. for development of the said Sunflower crop. Thereafter the complainant waited for the germination of the said seeds but was surprised to see that number of flowers were grown in one plant because of defective seeds. The complainant gave an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Ambala for investigation of the fields in which the sunflower plants were defective. Accordingly, a team was constituted and the said team inspected the fields of the complainant on 18.05.2022 and reported that in all the four acre land of the complainant, it is found that 50 to 55% sunflower plant are having single flower and 45 to 50% plants are having multi flowers, as the seeds are of substandard quality. The loss of crop was caused to the complainant due to the supply of defective seeds to the complainant by OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2, which is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has incurred the total loss of Rs.6,85,000/- due to supply of defective seeds by the OPs. Legal noticed dated 28.09.2022 was also served upon the OPs to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him but to no avail. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint;  the complainant had taken up the cultivation of sunflower seeds in his fields for commercial purposes i.e. for raising the sunflower seeds and selling the produce in the market to derive profit therefrom, as such, the complainant is not "consumer" as defined under consumer Protection Act; this complaint is not maintainable etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.1 is a dealer of OP No.2 and the seeds in question were sold to the complainant via sealed packet. The germination and proper yield is based on various factors. In the case of Ram Chander Versus Laxmi Beej Bhandar reported as 1 1994-CPJ-33 and R.S. Banumathi Versus Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company limited reported as 1 1992 CPJ 248 the Hon'ble Court held that the proper yield is based on various factors such as proper preparation of the land, fertilization, pest and disease control, proper irrigation, climate and seasonal conditions which are not in the control of any human agency. Under the Seed Act, 1996 (which is the special enactment) remedy is available for the complainants to get their grievance redressed. The complainant has not placed on record the empty bags of seeds. The complainant has not provided any evidence to prove that he had sown the same seeds as are alleged to have been supplied by the OPs.  The complainant has also failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had followed correct and prescribed agricultural practices for sowing the sunflower seed. The complainant has neither produced any evidence to the effect that he is owner of the land nor disclosed the fact that how much seed is required for one Acre. The complainant before filing this complaint, did not approach to the Seed Inspector regarding less germination of the seeds in their field. In fact, under the Seed Rules, 1968, under Rule 23-A, Seeds Inspector is duly bound to investigate the cause of the failure of the seeds by sending a sample of the lot to the seed Analyst for a detailed analysis in the State Seeds Testing Laboratory. Rule 23- A of the said Seed Rules is as under for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Commission:-
4.  

Action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him:-

(1) If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks of labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complaint for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the state Seed Testing Laboratory. He shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the competent authority.

 

(2) In case, the Seed Inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standard notified by the Central Government, he shall launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act or these Rules."

4.           The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd Versus Sadhu and another reported as 2005 3 SCC 198 has held that there has to be a specific report prepared by the Expert Committee" that the germination is not proper due to inferior quality of seeds. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/1A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the OPs have been closed by the order of this Commission on 15.03.2024.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by supplying defective seeds which resulted into damage of crops of the complainant thereby causing him financial loss and also mental agony and harassment, as such, the OPs are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice.  
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs while reiterating the objections taken in the written version submitted that the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the seeds sold to him was actually of inferior quality. He further submitted that the report dated 06.06.2022, Annexure C-2 given by the officers of the Agriculture Department placed on record by the complainant cannot be relied upon because the same have been prepared in the absence of the OPs. 
9.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether the complainant has been able to prove his case or not. It may be stated here that to prove his case, the complainant is solely relying upon the report dated 06.06.2022, Annexure C-2  having been issued by the Officers of the D.D.A., Agriculture Department, Ambala wherein it has been opined that because instead of one flower it has been observed that 10 to 15 small flowers have come on one plant in the field of the complainant; 45 to 50% of plants are multiflowering and 50 to 55% have one flower, therefore the quality of sunflower seed is bad; and the complainant has suffered loss of yield. Whereas the plea of the OPs is that no reliance can be placed on the said report because no notice regarding inspection of the crop by the Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ambala was received by them and the inspection was done in their absence. In the case of Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company and Anr. II 2013 CPJ NC, it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the report of agriculture department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating the OPs with inspection. Further in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited Vs. Ram Sarup CLT 2014-63 NC, it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that report obtained without notice to the OP cannot be relied upon. Except these reports, no other evidence has been placed on record by the complainants, thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the above-referred case, we are of the opinion that the report given by the officers of the Agriculture Department cannot be relied upon as the same has been prepared in the absence of the OPs.  
10.           At the same time the complainant has also failed to place on record, report of any laboratory to ascertain that the seeds in question sold by the OPs to him were of inferior quality. In Devender Kumar & Ors Vs. Amsons Lab Private Ltd.& Ors. reported in CPJ 2014IV page 575 the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  has held that Purchase of pesticide-Defect-Damage to crop-Loss suffered-Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission allowed appeal-Hence, revision-Complainants have not placed on record any laboratory report to substantiate that crops were damaged 100% due to application of pesticide-Report of Agriculture Development Officer only reveals that there was 100% damage to wheat crop-These officers have not carried out any test to ascertain whether 100% damage to wheat crop was due to application of purchased pesticides or not-Defects not proved. In case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Bhup Singh, in Revision Petition No.2144 of 2014, DOD: 9.4.2015, it is observed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, the germination of any kind of seed, is based on so many factors, such as, proper preparation of the land, fertilization, proper pesticides, proper irrigation, climate, and proper nourishment which again affected by seasonal vagaries which are not under the control of any human agency, for example, if there was no proper moisture in the land, there will not be proper germination. Lesser moisture or excess moisture affects the germination. Similarly, excessing use of fertilizer, also affects then, the climates such as, pouring of rain at proper time or improper time.  Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that without getting the seeds in question tested from appropriate laboratory, except physical inspection of the site aforesaid which is in violation of the relevant directions of the competent authorities, it cannot be said that the seeds in question were of inferior quality/sub standard. Thus, the version of complainant alleging that the seed sold by OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, were of inferior quality is not believable. As such, we do not hesitate to conclude that the complainant has miserably failed to prove their case. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same. Parties are left to bear their own costs.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 23.07.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President