BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.195 of 2013
Date of Institution : 31.10.2013
Date of Decision : 6.10.2016
Ami Lal son of Ram Rakh s/o Bega Ram, aged about 44 years, resident of village Chakka, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Bhatiwal Pesticides Village Chakka, Tehsil Rania, through its Proprietor Amar Singh Bhatiwal
- Bayer Crop Science Central Avenue Hiranandani Gardens, Pavai, Mumbai (400076) (Manufacturer company of B.T 905 Cotton seeds) through its Manager/ Incharge/ Authorized person/ responsible person.
...…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.S.K.Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. B.C. Bhatiwal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Jagat Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is owner in possession of land measuring 1½ acre situated in village Mehnakhera, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The op no.1 after asking the kind, nature and irrigation sources as well as past result of the agricultural land from the complainant, supplied him two packets of BT 905 Narma cotton seeds of Bayer company and charged Rs.1500/- in cash from complainant and issued bill dated 3.6.2013. The op no.1 fully assured about the originality of the seeds to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant sowed the said seed in one acre of land and did hard labour over the management and supervision of the land and was expecting a very good yield from the crop. However, the complainant suffered mental shock when he noticed that there was no cotton flower in the crop and due to lower and misbranded quality of the seed, there was damage/ loss to the total crop of the complainant. The complainant showed his field to the respectable of the village who stated that this is result of lower quality of cotton seed. Thereafter, the complainant approached the authorities of Agricultural Department, Sirsa and moved an application for inspection of his field. On the application of complainant, Officers of Agricultural Department visited the field of complainant on 5.10.2013 and reported the damage and loss to the crop of complainant to the extent of 80% vide report dated 17.10.2013 and also reported the reason of loss to the crop only due to sale and supply of defective and misbranded quality of seeds by op no.1. Thereafter, the complainant approached op no.1 and requested him to pay adequate amount of compensation but he refused to do so. Hence, this complaint.
2. Opposite party no.1 in his written statement has asserted that in the report no detail of land has been given and no notice was issued to answering op. The answering op has sold the seed to the complainant in a sealed pack in which condition he has received from M/s Phasal Suraksha Kender, Sirsa. The alleged report does not show anywhere that the less yield was due to the defective seed. Remaining contents have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 has replied that prior to filing of above said complaint, the complainant had filed an application before the Grievances Redressal Committee, Sirsa but the same was found to be false, thus he is not entitled to file present complaint. No detail of land has been given in the report and no notice was issued by the officers to op no.1 at the time of alleged inspection and in the alleged report the reason for less yield has been shown due to the disease of Patta Maror and the complainant did not try to control the disease within time. Remaining averments of the complaint have been denied.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1, bill dated 3.6.2013 Ex.C2, inspection report Ex.C3, pamphlet Ex.C4, copy of jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 Ex.C5 and photograph Ex.C6. On the other hand, ops have placed on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A, affidavit Ex.RW2/A, record of sale of seeds containing pages 2 to 6 Ex.R1 and tax invoice containing pages 7 to 288 Ex.R2.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsels for the parties.
6. The main dispute in this complaint is that cotton seed sold by the opposite parties was mixed and sub standard seed and due to that seed, the crop of the complainant has been affected and he has suffered loss to the extent of 80%. The complainant case depends upon the report Ex.C3 of the Agriculture department. We carefully have gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. It would not be out of place to mention here that the officials of the agriculture department have not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officials of the Agriculture department. From report Ex.C3 the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. Holding these views we have relied upon the observation of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in a case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 in which it was clearly observed by their Lordship that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant.
7 Further, the complainant claims to have sowed the above said seed in one acre of agricultural land whereas the report Ex.C3 says that the above said seed was sowed in 6 kanals of land. The report Ex.C3 also does not pin point any defect towards the seed in question rather says that there was disease of leaf curl. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant simply on the basis of a self serving affidavit and it can be said that the complainant had really suffered any loss due to defective seed.
8. Further more, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002, issued to all the Deputy Directors in the State in which it is directed by the Director Agriculture, that inspection team should be consisting with total four members, two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. However, the report Ex.C3 is not conclusive and the same is defective one. No notice was issued to Ops for spot verification and therefore report cannot be said to be valid one.
9. So, complainant has failed to prove his case from all angles and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law.
10. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed 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:6.10.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
