Haryana

StateCommission

A/861/2016

NASEEBSINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

04 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      861 of 2016

Date of Institution:      22.09.2016

Date of Decision :       04.08.2017

 

Naseeb Singh s/o Sh. Singha Ram, Resident of Village Malikpur, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.

 

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, Plot No.22, 4^th Mile Stone, behind Highway Hotel Sirsa Road, Hisar through its Managing Director.

2.      Aadhar Retailing Limited, near Bhagat Market, Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, through its proprietor.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Naseeb Singh-appellant in person.

                             Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2 (service dispensed with).

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated September 14^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.                Naseeb Singh-complainant filed complaint before the District Forum averring that he purchased six bags of Sunflower Seeds of Swati-145 variety, bearing batch No.48034 for a sum of Rs.4806/- at the rate of Rs.801/- per packet, vide bill dated February 26^th, 2009 (Exhibit C-2) from Aadhaar Retailing Limited-Opposite Party No.2, the authorised dealer of Nuziveedu Seeds Limited-Opposite Party No.1. The above mentioned seed was sown in six acres of land owned by the complainant. The complainant noticed that germination of seeds was very poor. The complainant informed the opposite party No.2 in this regard but the opposite party No.2 did not give any response. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra. Considering request of the complainant, a team of agricultural experts was constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra to visit the spot. The team of experts inspected the fields of the complainant and submitted report Exhibit C-1 mentioning that there was only 5% germination in whole six acres of land. In this way, the complainant suffered 95% loss in the yield of his sunflower crop. It was further pleaded that the income of the complainant by sowing sunflower crop should have been Rs.30,000/- per acre. In this way, the complainant suffered total loss amounting to Rs.1,80,000/-. It is prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant for the loss of crop due to supply of sub-standard seeds and an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony.

3.                The opposite party No.1 filed its written version taking plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complaint filed by the complainant is premature; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant purchased the seed from the opposite party No.2 which was produced by the answering opposite party No.1 a well reputed company. As per version of the opposite party No.1, the complainant procured a vague report in collusion with some officials of agriculture department in the absence of the opposite parties. Sunflower Swati-145 crop was to be ready for harvesting in 100 days of its sowing. However, the complainant filed complaint without waiting for the yield with malafide intention. Seeds were purchased by the complainant on February 26^th, 2009 and inspection report after inspection was prepared on March 27^th, 2009. In the inspection report, nothing is mentioned regarding any defect in the seeds of sunflower. Only it is mentioned that percentage of germination was only 5%.  Neither any defect in the seeds is pointed out nor inspection was conducted after prior notice to the opposite parties. Moreover, samples of seeds were not sent to the seeds testing laboratory for analysis as per procedure mentioned in Section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In fact, germination and proper growth of the crop depends upon method of sowing seeds, appropriate climatic condition, type of soil, irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients and effective use of fertilizers etc.  It is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

4.                Aadhar Retailing Limited-Opposite Party No.2 did not contest the complaint and was proceeded ex-parte.

5.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated September 14^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated September 14^th, 2016, passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to allow the complaint.

8.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

9.                As per version of the complainant he purchased six bags of sunflower seeds of Swati-145 variety bearing batch No.48034 from Aadhar Retailing Limited-Opposite Party No.2, the authorised dealer of Nuziveedu Seeds Limited-Opposite Party No1, at the rate of Rs.801/- per packet vide bill dated February 26^th, 2009 (Exhibit C-2). Each packet contained one Kg seeds. As per version of the complainant, the above mentioned 6 Kgs sunflower seeds was sown in his six acres agriculture land situated within the revenue estate of village Malikpur, District Kurukshetra. After sowing sunflower seeds, the complainant felt that germination of the seed was very poor. When the complainant did not get any response from the opposite party No.2, he approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra to enquire into the matter. A team of agricultural experts consisting of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Subject Matter Specialist and Assistant Plants Protection Officer was constituted. The above mentioned team of agricultural experts visited the land owned by the complainant and submitted report Exhibit C-1. 

10.              Version of the complainant is that the seeds purchased by him were defective and it was a case of poor germination. But in the inspection report (Exhibit C-1), there is no mention regarding quality of the seeds. In this four lines report, it is mentioned that germination of the seeds was found only 5% and inspection was conducted in presence of the complainant. It is also clear from the inspection report (Exhibit C-1) that the inspection was done by the above mentioned agricultural experts without notice to the opposite parties in violation of the directions given by the Director Agriculture Haryana vide letter dated March 01^st, 2002 (Annexure-A).  In that letter, directions were given that fields of complainant farmers should be inspected by a Committee comprising two officers of agriculture department, one representative of concerned seeds agency and a scientist of Krishi Gyan Kendra (KGK), Haryana Agriculture University (HAU). What happened, neither prior notice was given to the opposite parties nor any scientist of KGK or HAU was included in the Committee.

11.              During the course of arguments, the complainant who appeared in person stated that it was not the fault of the complainant that notice was not issued to the opposite parties and scientist concerned with agriculture department, was not joined in the inspection team. In our view, even if the report of the experts (Exhibit C-1) is considered to be prepared correctly after adopting the required procedure, even then on the basis of this report, findings cannot be given that the sunflower seeds sown by the complainant in his fields were defective. Apart from it, sample of seeds was also not got examined from a recognized seeds testing laboratory.

12.              During the course of arguments, the complainant has argued that in fact the extra seed was not available with the complainant for getting the same examined from a recognized laboratory and in this situation it was the duty of the opposite parties to get the sample seeds examined from a recognized seeds testing laboratory.  The complainant has also argued that in this situation, as germination of sunflower seeds was found to be only 5% as per expert report it can be presumed that seed purchased by the complainant was defective. In support of his this contention, the complainant has placed his reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case M/s National Seeds Corporation Limited vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Another, 2012(1) Apex Court Judgments 265 (S.C.).

13.              We have closely perused the above cited case law. In case law referred above, M/s National Seeds Corporation Limited vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Another (Supra), findings were given that a farmer is not expected to conserve certain portion of seed to meet the ludicrous expectation of the petitioner, to produce some seeds from somewhere to get it tested to meet the requirements of Section 13(1)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Findings were also given that in such a situation, one has to resort to alternative method.

14.              Following the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case law referred above, findings can be given that the opinion of expert cannot be ignored and taken lightly merely because the complainant failed to get the sample seeds analyzed from a recognized seeds testing laboratory.  Moreover, in such a situation it was the duty of the opposite parties also to get the sample seeds analyzed from a recognized lab as the sample seeds of same variety were available with the opposite parties. However, it appears that it could not be possible due to this reason also as the opposite parties did not receive any information regarding low germination of the seeds and grievance of the complainant.  No document has been placed on the file to show that the complainant ever submitted any complaint in writing to the opposite parties-manufacturer and dealer of the seeds.  It appears that the opposite parties also came to know regarding this grievance of the complainant after receiving notice from the District Forum after filing of the present complaint which was filed on July 31^st, 2004.

15.                 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents-opposite parties has contended that no weight can be given to the expert report (Exhibit C-1) as the inspection was done by a committee comprising of two officers of agriculture department in violation of the directions issued vide letter dated January 03^rd, 2002 (Annexure-A) from the office of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, as neither any representative of the seeds agency nor a scientist from KGK/KVK were involved at the time of inspection. The inspection was done without notice to the opposite parties. On the basis of the inspection report (Exhibit C-1), certainly findings cannot be given that the seeds were not of standard quality. In support of his this contention, learned counsel for the opposite parties placed his reliance upon case laws Revision Petition No.1451 of 2011 Syngenta India Limited versus P. Chowdaiah and another, decided on July 31^st, 2013 by Hon’ble National Commission and case law Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Limited  versus G. Sreenivasa Reddy and others, II(2012) CPJ 297 (NC).

16.              We have closely perused the above cited case laws. In case law Syngenta India Limited versus P. Chowdaiah and another (Supra), findings were given that inspection without notice to the opposite parties is against principle of natural justice. Findings were also given that no reliance can be placed upon the inspection report as even copy of the inspection report was not supplied to the opposite parties.  In that case, findings were given that on the basis of expert report alone in such circumstances, findings cannot be given that the seeds were defective. Apart from it, the onus was upon the complainant to prove that the seeds supplied to him were defective or spurious.  The complainant has based his case mainly on the expert report (Exhibit C-1). But in the said report, it is nowhere mentioned that the seeds supplied to the complainant were either defective or spurious.   

17.              As per discussions above, case laws relied by the opposite parties fully supports the version of the opposite parties. Firstly, much weight cannot be given to the expert report (Exhibit C-1) as the inspection was conducted without notice to the opposite parties and without associating a scientist. In the inspection report it is nowhere mentioned that the seeds supplied to the complainant were defective and germination of the seeds was poor due to defective or spurious seeds. There may be so many reasons of poor germination of seeds. Germination of seeds depends upon the climatic condition, nature of soil, proper irrigation, use of manure and fertilizer etc.  In these circumstances, findings can be safely given that the cause of poor germination may not be quality of seeds but may be other reasons also, as mentioned above.

18.              Apart from it, it was also one of the reasons of poor germination because the complainant had sown only one kg seeds per acre whereas as per agronomy of sunflower farming about 8-10 Kgs seeds is required for one hectare land. In this way, as per requirement 4 Kgs sunflower seed should have been sown in one acre land whereas the complainant had sown only one kg seed per acre.

19.              As a result, as per discussions above in detail, findings can be safely given that the complainant has failed to prove that low percentage of germination of sunflower seeds in the agricultural land owned by him was due to poor quality of seeds or the seed purchased by the complainant was defective or spurious.  In these circumstances, findings can be safely given that it is not a case of deficiency in service. We find no illegality and invalidity in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. Hence, the findings given by the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

 

Announced: 04.08.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL