State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harjinder Singh Son Of Karnail Singh vs Handa Seeds Fertilizers And Agro ... on 16 February, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1649 of 2005
Date of institution : 26.12.2005
Date of decision : 16.2.2011
Harjinder Singh son of Karnail Singh, Village Kokari Kalan, District Moga.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. Handa Seeds Fertilizers and Agro Chemicals, Link Road, Jagraon through
its prop./partner.
2. National Seeds Corporation Ltd., (Govt. of India Undertaking), Beej
Bhawan, Pucca Complex, New Delhi.
3. Chief Agricultural Officer, Moga.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 18.8.2005 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate.
For respondents No.1&2 : Shri Gopal Mittal, Advocate.
For respondent No.3 : Ex parte.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The appellant was an agriculturist having an experience of more than 15 years. Agriculture was the source of his livelihood. The appellant had gone to the shop of respondent No.1 for purchasing seed. Respondent No.1 told the appellant that the seed prepared by respondent No.2 PUCA-44 was the best quality seed which gives high yield within the time period of 75-90 days.
2. It was further pleaded that believing the said representation of respondent No.1, the appellant purchased bag of PUCA-44 seed from respondent No.1 against bill No.41 dated 12.4.2003 for an amount of Rs.2,340/-. It was sown by him in his fields but the seed proved to be defective and of inferior quality as it could not First Appeal No.1649 of 2005. 2 germinate properly. The growth of the plants was not only poor but also the growth stages were different. The appellant contacted respondent No.1 but the response was unsatisfactory.
3. It was further pleaded that the appellant lodged the complaint with the Agriculture Officer, Moga who appointed the agriculture expert to assess the quality of seed and subsequent loss suffered by the appellant. The Agriculture Officer, Moga visited the fields of the appellant and found that due to defective quality of seed it could not germinate properly. The appellant had suffered the loss. Hence the complaint for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. Damages and costs were also prayed.
4. Respondent No.1 filed the written reply. It was admitted that the appellant had purchased the seed from the shop of respondent No.1 vide bill No.41 dated 12.4.2003 but it was denied if the seed purchased by the appellant as manufactured by respondent No.2 was of poor quality. It was also denied if respondent No.1 had given any assurance to the appellant that the yield would be ready for harvesting within 75 to 90 days.
5. It was further pleaded that the appellant had failed to abide by the instructions of respondent No.1 and necessary procedure was not followed by him. It was also pleaded that before sowing, the seed was to be dipped in a tub/bucket. The seed was to be stirred. Immature grains were to be removed which normally float on the top. The proper and heavy seed was to settle down at the bottom. 8 to 10 kilograms seed was to be transplanted in an acre of land. Since the appellant failed to follow the procedure, it led to less yield. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. Respondent No.2 also filed the written reply. It was pleaded that the appellant was not a consumer qua respondent No.2. However the seed prepared by respondent No.2 was the best quality seed and respondent No.2 enjoyed good First Appeal No.1649 of 2005. 3 reputation. The farmers sow this quality of seed and no complaint was received from any other farmer. The guidelines for sowing the seed were as under:-
"(A) To restrict timely sowing of the nursery (10 May) and timely transplantation schedule (10-20 June) for better grain quality and water saving.
(B) To use nitrogen and FYM judiciously. Excessive use of nitrogen fertilizer encourage multiplication of insect, pests particularly white backed plant hopper and diseases namely false smut and BLB.
(C) To give chemical sprays at right stage to control false smut and while backed plant hopper.
(D) To avoid transplanting paddy in poorly drained sandy soil. (E) Plant Hopper feed at the base of rice plants are often overlooked. There damage is only noticed when the crop is hopper burnt. Hence monitoring of insect population is necessary.
(F) Before sowing, to dip the seed in suitable lots in water contained in a tub/bucket. Stir the seed and remove immature grains which float at the top. The heavy seed will settle down at the bottom. 8-10 Kg. of heavy seeds is sufficient for transplantation of an acre. Heavy seeds ensure healthy, sturdy and uniform seeding. Soak the selected seeds in 10 litres of water containing 10 g Ceresan wet and 1 g Streptocycline for 8-10 hours before sowing. If Ceresan wet is not available, use 10 g agallol or 5 g Tafasan/Aretan. (D) To avoid the mixing of varieties in the field, do not grow the rice nursery at the site of the last year threshing. The grain of previous year left in the field can result in to variation of quality of the product.First Appeal No.1649 of 2005. 4
(H) To use fertilizer without leaving any space as the space left at the time of use of fertilizer may varied the proper growth of the crop."
7. The appellant was guilty of not taking proper precautions and measures. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.2. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
8. The parties produced affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
9. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 18.8.2004.
10. Hence the appeal.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted, the impugned order dated 18.8.2004 be set aside and the appellant be awarded adequate compensation.
12. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed with heavy costs.
13. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
14. The undisputed facts are that PUCA-44 seed was manufactured by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 had sold that seed in sealed form to the appellant against bill No.41 dated 12.4.2003 for an amount of Rs.2,340/-.
15. The appellant has nowhere mentioned as to whether that seed was developed in the form of nursery and thereafter it was transplanted. He has also not given the area of land in which the said seed was sown by the appellant nor the dates when that seed was grown in the nursery or the date when it was transplanted. He has also not given any stages from the date of purchase of the seed on 12.4.2003 till the fields of the appellant were seen by Harbans Lal, Agriculture Officer on 10.9.2003. It means, therefore, that for five months in between the appellant has not given any details.
First Appeal No.1649 of 2005. 5
16. He has nowhere mentioned in the complaint as to how much was the normal produce of the crop per acre or what was the rate of the crop in those days. He has straightway demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation but the breakup of this amount of compensation is not given. Even it is not mentioned by the appellant if this amount of compensation has been claimed by him on the basis of loss assessed by the Agriculture Inspector.
17. Even the report of Agriculture Inspector Harbans Lal is very vague. He has not described as to how much land was owned by the appellant and how many killas of land was sown by him and how many plants were separated by him for assessment. He simply says that he had held the inspection on 10.9.2003. 10% of the paddy crop was taller in height. 5% of paddy crop was at a different stage while 5% of the paddy crop was ripe for harvesting and 20% of paddy crop had become black. This report is totally vague nor the Agriculture Inspector has deposed as to how much loss the appellant has suffered? What was the normal produce from one acre and how much loss in crop the appellant has suffered? Thus the complaint of the appellant as also the report of the Agriculture Inspector are totally vague and unspecific.
18. Keeping in view the discussion held above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
February 16, 2011 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER
First Appeal No.1649 of 2005. 6