BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 44 of 2014
Date of Institution : 01.04.2014
Date of Decision : 11.1.2017
Rajbir Singh aged about 33 years son of Shri Ram Partap, resident of village Barasari, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Beniwal Beej Bhandar, Jodkian Road, village Barasari District Sirsa through its Proprietor Sushil Kumar.
- M/s Rama Agro Chemicals, 2-3-4, Janta Hospital Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Proprietor.
- PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Registered and Corp. Office, 3rd Floor, Babukhan’s Millenium Centre, H.No. 6-3-1099/1100, Rajbhawan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-50082.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA …………………………..PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. J.S. Sidhu. Advocate for complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 2.
Sh. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that he owns four acres of land in village Barasari and sowed mustard crop in the land. On 15.10.2013, he purchased two bags of mustard seed and op no.1 had charged an amount of Rs.800/- from him vide bill No.124 dated 15.10.2013 and had given full assurance about the quality of seed. However, complainant noticed that his entire crop has been totally damaged. The complainant immediately approached op no.1 and narrated the above facts to him. The op no.1 told him that it is not a matter of worry and advised him to wait with the assurance that with the passage of time, he will definitely receive good yields but no improvement was seen and the damage of crop kept on increasing day by day. Thereafter, complainant again visited the shop of op no.1 and reported him the damages and symptoms of his crop and requested him to compensate him on which op no.1 admitted his fault and assured that he will help him as much as possible. The complainant moved an application to the Agriculture department to inspect his crop and the officials of agriculture department after examination prepared and issued a report dated 8.11.2013 wherein it was reported that 60-65% of crop has been damaged till that date due to the use of above said seed. Thereafter, the complainant contacted op no.1 and requested him to compensate him but he flatly refused to extend any help to him. The opposite parties have caused loss of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant towards crop and besides that he has already spent amount of Rs.20,000/- on irrigation, purchase of seed and cultivation etc. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and replied that complaint is not maintainable as no defect in the seed is proved. The alleged inspection report prepared by the officials of the Agriculture Department is not in accordance to the letter dated 3.1.2002 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana and therefore, alleged inspection report cannot be relied upon. Moreover, the complainant has no where mentioned specific killa numbers and square numbers wherein he has allegedly sowed the seed in question and it is a serious defect in the complaint. The complainant has not furnished the report of any expert/ laboratory about the quality of seeds. The answering op no.1 sold the seeds in sealed and packed packets as received from distributor. The prescribed quantity of mustard seed per acre is 1¼ Kg. whereas in the instant case, the complainant purchased two packets of 1¼ Kg. each which was meant only for two acres of land but according to complainant he sowed the same in 4 acres of land which shows that he had sowed very less quantity of seed. Moreover, the crop of the complainant had been infected with some disease, which cannot be attributed to the quality of seed and variation of crop depends on many factors. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
3. Opposite party no.3 has replied that seeds sent into the market for sale are subjected to various qualitative tests including germination and purity. From the inspection memorandum it is not conclusively established that low germination is due to defective seeds. In fact the Agriculture Officer sent the samples in teeth of law and procedure to certain laboratory for inspection/ analysis and the report of which is also not annexed or produced before the Forum. The op no.3 also replied on the similar lines as that of ops no.1 & 2.
4. The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence despite availing various opportunities including last opportunity and as such his evidence was closed by order. The op no.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, power of attorney Ex.R2, seed analysis report Ex.R3. OP no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R4.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. Written arguments submitted on behalf of op no.3 and law cited by learned counsel for op no.3 have also been perused.
6. The complainant has failed to prove that the seed in question was of inferior quality and mis-branded. The complainant has not proved the inspection report allegedly conducted by the Officers of the agriculture department. So, it cannot be said that how much loss has been caused to the complainant and whether the loss is due to defective seed or for any other reason. Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002, issued to all the Deputy Director in the State it was directed by the Director Agriculture that inspection team should be consisting total four members, two officer of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that any notice was given to the representative of the concerned agency. Moreover, the complainant has not annexed any test/ analysis report of samples of seed sent to the laboratory by the officers of the agriculture department. On the other hand, opposite parties have placed on file seed analysis report Ex.R3 according to which purity of seed in question is 98% and in absence of any contrary report, the said report Ex.R3 is to be relied upon.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:11.1.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
