Haryana

StateCommission

A/989/2017

IFFCO - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

RAMAN GAUR

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:03.08.2017

                Date of final hearing:18.04.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 26.04.2023

 

First Appeal No.989 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      Indian Farmers Fertilizer C-operative Limited (IFFCO) Kissan Sewa Kendra, Bhatu Mandi, District Fatehabad, presently through its State Marketing Manager, Haryana, IFFCO Sadan, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh.

2.      Development Officer IFDS Circle Bhattu Mandi, Fatehabad.

3.      IFFCO Colony, Sector 17-B, Gurgaon-122001.

4.      IFFCO Sadan C1, District Center, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017.

.….Appellants.

Through Counsel Shri Raman Gaur, Advocate

Versus

 

Suresh Kumar son of Ghasi Ram, R/o Dhani Mohabbatpur, Tehsil Mandi Adampur, District Hisar.

….Respondent.

Through counsel Shri Narender Kajla, Advocate

 

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri Raman Gaur, counsel for the appellants.

                   Shri Narender Kajla, counsel for respondent.

 

O R D E R

S. C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                   Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 27.06.2017 in Consumer Complaint No.176 of 2012, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (now ‘learned District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite parties (‘OPs’) were directed as under:-

“Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances we have reached at the conclusion that if the complainant had been able to receive full amount of crop in 10 acres then he might have received Rs.6,00,000/- but as per the report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-2) the complainant had suffered loss to the tune of 80% to 90% of crop, therefore, the end of justice would be met  if the Ops are directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- in lump-sum for the loss suffered by him along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization which shall be paid by the OPs jointly and severally.”

 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint filed before learned District Commission are that complainant had purchased 35 Kgs. of Gaur Seed HG563 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.14,000/- vide cash memo No.092 dated 26.05.2012 to sow the same in his land. It was alleged that complainant had followed all the instructions of OPs at the time of sowing the seeds in his fields, but despite that there was less fruit on the plants which were having great height and the root cause of the above said problem is due to inferior and adulterated seeds supplied by OPs. On the request of complainant, the official of Agriculture Department had inspected the fields of the complainant on 12.10.2012 and assessed the loss to the extent 80%-90%. It was further alleged that the complainant requested the OPs to compensate on account of alleged loss but all in vain. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before learned District Commission and Ops No.1, 3 & 4 filed their joint written version by submitting therein that seed sold by the OP to complainant were of good quality and the same was certified according to law by the seed certifying agency of Government of Haryana. There is no complaint regarding germination of seeds and the report of inspection of agriculture department was no report in the eyes of law as the inspecting team did not try to verify the ownership and possession of the field and even no khasra number or area of the field in question has been mentioned in the report. It is further submitted that no notice was given to the OPs about the visit of the official of the Agriculture Department to the fields. The variation in the condition of the crop in the same lot of seed at different fields may not be attributed to the quality of seed but to the other factors including high salt, concentration, brackish water, moisture content, sowing method and soil physical conditions which also play a major role in the yield of crop. It was further submitted that the report in question is in violation of the instructions of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana Panchkula vide memo No.52-70/TA (SS) dated PKL 3^rd January, 2002. Question of mixing of another seed in the certified seed by the OPs does not arise at all. It was further submitted that the complainant did not suffer any loss as 5 to 6 Kgs of Gaur Seed is required for sowing an area of one acre. The yield depends upon natural causes and the content made in the complaint and inspection report are self-contradictory and falsify the claim of each other. It was further submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.1, 3 & 4 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                On the other hand, OP No.2 in its written reply has taken the same ground as of Ops No.1,3 & 4 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission accepted the complaint of complainant and issued directions as mentioned above in 1^st para supra.

6.                Aggrieved from the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, OPs-appellants have preferred present appeal for setting aside the impugned order by praying for accepting the present appeal.

7.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Raman Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Narender Kajla, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance, contents of the appeal has also been properly perused and examined.

7.                While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr. Raman Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants that respondent-complainant had purchased 35 Kgs. of Gaur Seed HG563 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.14,000/- vide cash memo No.092 dated 26.05.2012 to sow the same in his land. As per the respondent he followed all the instructions of appellant at the time of sowing the seeds in his fields, but despite that there was less fruit on the plants which were having great height and the root cause of the above said problem is due to inferior and adulterated seeds supplied by the appellant. He further argued that seeds sold by the appellant to respondent was of good quality and also certified by certifying agency of Government of Haryana. He further argued that there is no complaint regarding germination of seeds. Moreover, inspecting team did not try to verify the ownership and possession of the field and even no khasra number or area of the field in question has been mentioned in the report. He further argued that no notice was given to the appellant about the visit of the official of the Agriculture Department to the fields. The variation in the condition of the crop in the same lot of seed at different fields may not be attributed to the quality of seed but to the other factors including high salt, concentration, brackish water, moisture content, sowing method and soil physical conditions which also play a major role in yield of crop. He further argued that question of mixing of another seeds in the certified seeds by the OP does not arise at all. The respondent did not suffer any loss as 5 to 6 Kgs of Gaur Seed is required for sowing an area of one acre. He further argued that there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellants and prayed for acceptance of the appeal by setting-aside the impugned order.

8.                Mr. Narender Kajla, learned counsel for respondent has argued that the respondent-complainant had followed all the instructions of appellants-OPs at the time of sowing the seeds in his fields, but despite that there was less fruit on the plants which were having great height and the root cause of the above said problem is due to inferior and adulterated seeds supplied by the appellant. On the request of respondent, the official of Agriculture Department had inspected the fields of the respondent on 12.10.2012 and assessed the loss to the extent 80%-90%. He further argued that respondent requested the appellants to compensate on account of alleged loss but all in vain and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of appellants. Further he prayed that present appeal may kindly be dismissed.

9.                In view of the above submissions and on a careful perusal of the entire record, it is admitted that the complaint-respondent purchased 35 Kgs. Gaur Seed HG-563 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.14,000/- vide cash memo No.092 dated 26.05.2012 to sow the same in his land. It is also not disputed that Deputy Director of Agriculture had directed the officers to inspect the fields of many farmers from whom complaint regarding adulteration in the seed sold by IFFCO was received.  Moreover, as far as the question of identifiction of land inspected by the officials of Agriculture Department is concerned, it is proved that respondent purchased the seeds from appellant for the agriculture land of which he is in cultivating possession. On the other hand, in the inspection report of Agriculture Department, it has been specifically mentioned that in five acres of land there is mixture of seeds and three variety of plants are grown in the field. Therefore, the crop will not ripe at one time. It will reduce the quality and quality of yield and as such will cause a loss to the farmer to the extent of 80%-90%. Thus, it was proved that the appellant sold mixed seeds to respondent and due to that reason he suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.80% to 90%.

10.              Learned District Commission rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law, there is no need to interfere with it. In view of this, present appeal stands dismissed.

11.              Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of present appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt, identification and as per rules.

12.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

 13.               Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 14.               File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 26^th April, 2023                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                            S.C. Kaushik                                                                                                                        Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 R.K