BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                          Complaint No.: 14 of 2015.

                                                          Date of Institution: 14.01.2015.

                                                          Date of Decision: 13.03.2019.

Sandeep son of Shri Ramphal, resident of village Dhanana, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                                   ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.       M/s Agree Business Center, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani.

2.       Kohinoor, Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd., Kansal Sadan, AB-26, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088.

(Manufacturer of Cotton Seed {Kohinoor AAH-1} purchased by the complainant)         

    …...Opposite Parties.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.

Present:       Shri AK Vashisth, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Vinod Parmar, Advocate for the OP No. 1.

None for the OP No. 2.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that he purchased cotton seeds “Kohinoor AAH-I)” one bag @ 600/- per bag vide bill dated 21.4.2014 and the batch No. of the bag not mentioned on the bill by the OP No. 1.  It is alleged that the complainant is an educated agriculturist prepared the cultivable land properly and sow the seed properly.  It is further alleged that the complainant gave full attention on his crops as per the requirement and inspite of all efforts the growth of the cotton was not upto mark as the cotton plant came height upto 5½ feet, but no flower and cotton bud (tinda) has been appeared, it shows that seeds sold by the OPs were defective and of sub standard quality, as such there is shortfall in the production of cotton by 95% and the complainant has suffered loss of production of cotton yield at large.  It is further alleged that the complainant has spent Rs.8000/- per acre on preparation of land, seed, fertilizers etc. on the above said cotton crop and he took the matter with the officer of the Agriculture department Haryana at Bhiwani to assess the total loss of yield due to defective seed sold by OPs.  It is further alleged that the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.50,000/- (cost of yield per acre) + Rs.8000/- (expenditure on preparation of land for cotton crop per acre).  It is further alleged that the complainant has also brought the matter to the notice of OP No. 1 and requested him to compensate by paying Rs.58,000/-, who initially assured to compensate and in the last week of December, 2014 refused to pay any single penny. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OP No. 1 filed the contested written statement alleging therein that the answering OP has not sold any seed of Kohinoor company to the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant has shown Rs.600/- per bag, whereas the answering OP has sold Rs.300/- per bag.  It is further alleged that the complainant has sown 4 acres cotton and he only purchased 2 packets seed i.e. 400 gm per packet, whereas 1 kg 200 gm to 1 kg 500 gm seed is required to be sown in one acre of land and in this way the complainant has not sown full quantity of seeds.  It is further alleged that the complainant has not given the detail of his agricultural land in his complaint.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                On notice, the OP No. 2 has appeared and filed its separate written statement denying all the allegations of the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant is not consumer of the OPs, as no copy of bill has been supplied by the complainant.  It is further alleged that the present complaint has been filed by complainant in collusion with the OP No. 1.  It is further alleged that the OP No. 1 has never been the distributor of the answering OP.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C5 in evidence and closed the evidence.

5.                Ld. Counsel for the OP has placed on record documents as Annexure RW1/A and annexure R2 to R6 & closed the evidence. 

6.                We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

7.                There cannot be any dispute on the question of facts and law that the onus of proof lies with the complainant to prove his case. But the ground realities in the case in hand are different because a farmer cannot be expected to retain any part of high value seed to get it tested in case of unforeseen contingency.  The OPs No. 2 are seed producer and always have some quality of seed left with them and they could have got tested and brought on file. It seems that it is their failure to perform these tests.  In our view the Provision of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act have been complied with by the complainant as he had led evidence and produced Inspection report. From the perusal of Annexure C2 inspection report of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bhiwani, it is clear that during inspection the height of cotton plants was 5.9 feet, there was no weed in the cotton crop, the crop was properly irrigated and there was no bud (tinda) on the plants on 22.9.2014 and it was also reported that there was no chance of any yield.  It has also come in the inspection report that there appears poor quality of seed.  So, meaning thereby there is no need to get the seed tested from the Laboratory because crop was inspected by the Dy. Director of Agriculture, Bhiwani cannot be disbelieved on the ground that no Laboratory report has been produced on record. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence produced on record by the OPs to prove that Dy. Director of Agriculture, Bhiwani has any biased and ill will attitude against the OPs.  Therefore, no law has been cited by the counsel for the OPs that farmers are expected to preserve certain portion of seeds for testing to meet the requirements of Section 13 (1) (c).

8.                From the perusal of bill Annexure C1, it is clear that the complainant had purchased cotton seeds of Variety named “Kohinoor AAH-I)” two packet from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.600/- vide Bill No.603 dated 21.4.2014 which was developed, produced, packed and marketed by OP No.2.  The said seed was sown by complainant in his one acres of land. He moved an application for inspection of his field to the Dy. Director, Agriculture, Bhiwani due to poor quality seed and inspection was carried out without any biasness or ill-will against OPs. Moreover, no allegation of any kind had been leveled by the OPs against the Dy. Director of Agriculture, Bhiwani regarding ill will or any motive.

9.                The Dy. Director of Agriculture, Bhiwani inspected each and everything, even regarding the land and the moisture contents at the time of sowing the crop and also salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing method etc.  In view of the above circumstances there is no need to seek the report from any expert as the Dy. Director Agriculture, Bhiwani was fully competent to inspect any crop.  So, Dy. Director Agriculture, Bhiwani had inspected the field of the complainant in every sphere.  So far as the question that in how many acres the cotton crop was sown by the complainant is concerned, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation only for one acre of land as he has purchased only two packets of cotton crop i.e. for one acre of land and he has prayed in his complaint only for the grant of loss of one acre cotton crop.  But lateron he has placed on record evidence for four acres of land for cotton crops, but the same cannot be considered, as the same is beyond pleadings of the complainant.

10.              Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above it has been clearly proved that due to poor and sub-standard quality of seeds, there was no bud (tinda) on the cotton plants and due to which the complainant has been deprived of the income of land and has to bear the losses. So, it is clear cut grave deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant has suffered huge financial losses, but the complainant not fully succeed in proving on record about the expenses incurred by him on the preparation of land and he also failed to prove that how much loss suffered by him.. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OPs are directed:-

i)        To pay Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand only) as loss of cotton crop of one acre in all to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its final realization.

ii)       To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as counsel fee as well as litigation charges.

11.              However, it is made clear that OP No.2 being producer of the Seed in question is liable to pay 70% of the total compensation and remaining 30% shall be paid by OP No.1 being seller of the seed in question.

          The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i to ii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 13.3.2019.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: - 13.03.2019.               

(Saroj Bala Bohra)                    (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                     Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.