Haryana

StateCommission

A/549/2017

M/S JANAK SEEDS - Complainant(s)

Versus

PHOOL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN CHAUHAN

07 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                                               First Appeal No.549 of 2017                                            Date of Institution: 09.05.2017

Date of Decision: 07.03.2019

M/s Janak Seeds, 89, New Anaj Mandi, Indri, District Karnal through its proprietor Sh.Krishan Kamboj.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Phool Kumar s/o Sh. Sh.Khazan Singh, R/o Village Raipur Jattan, Tehsil Gharaunda Distt. Karnal.

2.      M/s Dahiya Seeds Corporation, New Anaj Mandi road, Gharaunda, District Karnal through its proprietor Sh.Jaswant Singh.

…..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Manjula Sharma, Member

Present:              Shri Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Rajesh Duhan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Respondent No.2 is deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 18.12.2017).

 

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that on 19.05.2011, he purchased two bags of 10 Kgs each of paddy seed for Rs.500/- from opposite party No.1. The complainant had sown paddy seeds in his agricultural land measuring seven acres, but, the seed did not grow up as per the expectation and it was found that seed sold by O.P.No.1 was mixed with other types of inferior quality seed  He moved an application to Deputy, Director of Agriculture, Karnal in the month of September, 2011.  The official of the department inspected his fields and made report and according to which, the seed was  found to be mixed with 56-66% of the other varieties.  He suffered loss of Rs.10,000/- per acre for fertilizer, nutrients and pesticides. etc. The income from his crop could be 50,000/-, Rs.60,000/- per acre in normal practice.  He requested the O.P.No.1 to pay compensation, but, to no avail. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

3.      O.Ps. filed separate reply controverting his averments and  O.P.No.1 alleged that the seed was purchased from Janak seeds, indri, vide bill dated 01.05.2011 and sold the same in packed condition to the complainant.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1.

4.      O.P.No.2 filed separate written statement and alleged that the O.P.No.2 sold the quality seed.  Mixing of seed could be possible due to old seed already in the land.  Due to the fault of unskilled labour and grower the seed of the two varieties get mixed. No lab test was got done by the complainant.  No notice was issued from the office of Deputy Director Agriculture to it.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.2.

5.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 31.03.2017 and  directed the O.Ps. to pay Rs.56,000/-  as compensation to the complainant for the loss due to mixed seed of paddy supplied by the O.Ps. and also directed the Ops to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. No.2.-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Parveen Chauhan, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Rajesh Duhan, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. With his kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      In fact as per the matrix of the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that complainant had purchased paddy seeds from the O.P.No.1 manufactured by O.P.No.2.  It is also not disputed that upon written complaint, the inspection team inspected the field of the complainant and found that there was 65-66% mixing in paddy field.  As per the inspection report, the other variety of plants was grown in his field.  The report of the expert had been prepared, which is available on the record, wherein it has been mentioned that the yield production is not good as was expected as per the quality of the seed purchased by the complainant.  

9.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that at the time of inspection, the representative of the manufacturer or the dealer was to be associated with the team.   The seed was not properly sown by the complainant and he has not obtained the report from any recognized laboratory under section 13 (1) of the C.P.Act, 1986, as such, the complainant is not liable to pay the same and as such, the impugned order be set aside and appeal be allowed.

10.    More so, no notice was given to the manufacturer before inspection.  As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Indian Farmers fertilizers co-operative Vs. Bhup Singh in revision petition No.2144 of 2014 decided on  09.04.2015 such report cannot be relied upon if notice was not issued to O.Ps. before visit.  The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-

“6.     Perusal of inspection report clearly reveals that  inspection was made by a team of B.A.O., S.M.S. (PP) and SDAO whereas, as per circular of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 03.01.2002 fields were to be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK. Admittedly, inspection was not carried out after due notice to representative of OP and Scientist was not called and admittedly, not in their presence.  In such circumstances, inspection report made by some officers of Agriculture Department cannot be acted upon and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were not of standard quality, particularly, when these seeds were certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency.  Learned District Forum and learned State Commission wrongly observed that non formation of team as per circular of director of Agriculture was not fault of the complainant.  At the time of inspection, complainant should have asked the inspecting team to intimate OP as well Scientist for carrying out inspection and as inspection has not been done by the duly constituted committee, no reliance can be placed on this inspection report and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the petitioner.

7.      In R.P.No.1451 of 2011-Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah, P.Sreenivasulu and Sai Agro Agencies it was observed that inspection without notice to OP is against the principles of natural justice and no reliance was placed on inspection report as it was not supplied to the OP to present his view on the report.  He also placed reliance on the judgment of this commission in R.P.No.4280 to 4282 of 2007-Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. Sreenivasa Reddy & Ors. In which it was observed as under:-

“Hon’ble Supreme court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs.Sadhu & Anr. II (2005) SLT 569=11 (2005) CPJ 13 SC=(2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs.Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2428/2008, has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The apex court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant.

Report of Agriculture Department in case in hand does   not mention about inferior quality of seeds and merely because some of the plants were of low height without any fruit, it cannot be presumed that seeds were mixed with low quality of seeds.

8.      In the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that report obtained by the complainant without notice to OP cannot be relied upon and learned District Forum fell in error while holding deficiency in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be allowed.”

11.    After observation of Hon’ble National Commission nothing is left to be discussed about this report. When this report cannot be relied upon it cannot be presumed that complainant has suffered any loss due to poor quality of seeds. 

12.    As per the contents of the complaint, the complainant purchased paddy seeds for seven acres of agricultural land, but, as per the prescribed norms issued by the competent authorities of the  Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., the seed was not sufficient for the prescribed agricultural land.  Moreover, Ex.C-2  the expert report found that there was about 65-66% mixing of the different varieties of the seeds and hence the liability under these circumstances cannot be fastened upon the manufacturer or the dealer.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects.  Hence, the impugned order dated  31.03.2017 is set aside.  The appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

March 7th, 2019 Manjula               Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                           Addlk. Bench          Addl.Bench                 

S.K.