BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.87 of 2011
Date of Institution : 11.04.2011
Date of Decision : 14.9.2016
Gurdeep Singh aged 57 years son of Shri Kartar Singh, resident of village Nanuana, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Bhuvnesh Agro Centre, Old stand, Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa through its Proprietor.
2. Bharat Seeds Trading Company M/s Sharda Beej Bhandar, 62, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Manager.
...…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. B.S.Thind. Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is an agriculturist and owns and possesses agricultural land in village Nanuana, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. The complainant purchased two bags of paddy seed of Brand PB-I, bearing batch No.Oct/09.98.231.02 containing 12 Kgs. each for a sum of Rs.960/- from opposite party no.1 vide cash memo No.1701 dated 1.5.2010 upon the assurance of op no.1. The complainant sowed the seed in his 9 acres land comprising in Khewat No.71 and provided the requisite quantity of water and fertilizers etc. as per specifications. But when the plants grew-up, the complainant was surprised to see that there were different kind and different sizes of plants and the yield was also very less. The complainant then got inspected his field from the village Panchayat and also from the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa who endorsed the fact there are different kind and different size of plants and that there will be less yield from the plants. This happened due to inferior quality of seeds supplied by ops to the complainant. The complainant could not get the desired and required quantity of yield from his above crop and thus suffered a loss of Rs.2,65,000/- due to less crop. When the complainant approached the op no.1 to inspect the field and to pay him adequate amount as compensation, he refused to do so. The op no.2 has produced inferior/ substandard quality of seed. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, op no.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement submitting therein that purchase of seeds by the complainant is not disputed. However, there is no question of any assurance on the part of answering op regarding better yield because the same depends upon various factors like quality of the soil, insecticide or pesticides used by the farmer and availability of the water etc. Therefore, no dealer of company can assure better yield. Moreover, the seeds in question manufactured by op no.2 were tested by the Haryana State Seeds Certificate Institute having its Regional Office at Sirsa and were declared passed after lot of experiments in the laboratory. It is further submitted that as per the specifications and recommendations about four/ five kgs. of seeds are required for one acre to fetch good yield, whereas as per the version of the complainant himself he sowed 24 Kgs. of seeds in his 9 acres of land and complainant may have mixed some other quality of seeds.
3. OP no.2 in its separate reply asserted that the alleged inspection reports prepared by the officials of the Agriculture Department as well as Sarpanch/Gram Panchayat of the village are not scientific/ technical and expert report and as such is highly defective one and cannot be used against the ops, because in the report, they have not mentioned the killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land which was inspected by them. It is further asserted that the alleged seed in question is a paddy seed and about its character and identification, only breeder can tell and explain. Therefore, the alleged inspection report cannot be relied upon. Moreover, the answering ops were neither given any notice of alleged inspection of the field of the complainant nor were joined in the alleged inspection of field. The answering op had sold and supplied the paddy seed with its brand and specifications as “Improved PB-1 Paddy Seed” bearing Lot No.Oct-09-07-231-02 vide bill No.111 dated 13.4.2010 to op no.1, but the op no.1 did not sell the same seed to the complainant rather sold PB-1 seed and gave the lot number of Improved PB-I seed with the malafide intention. So, the name of answering op is liable to be deleted. Moreover, the complainant has sowed very loss quantity of seed in his 9 acres of land and crop depends upon various other factors also. The complaint is bad for non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, as the complainant has not furnished the report of any expert/ lab test report about the quality of the seeds.
4. By way of evidence, the parties have placed on file affidavits and documents. The complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of cash/credit memo Ex.C2, copy of application moved to Sarpanch dated 1.9.2010 Ex.C3, copy of inspection report Ex.C4, copy of letter dated 24.9.2010 Ex.C5, copy of legal notice Ex.C6 and copies of postal receipts Ex.C7 to C9. OP no.1 placed on file affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to R20. Op no.2 placed on file affidavit Ex.R21 and documents Ex.R22 to Ex.R25.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsels for the parties.
6. The case of the complainant is that he purchased 24 Kgs. of paddy seed from op no.1 and had sowed the same in his 9 acres of land and when the plants were grown, same were of different kind and sizes. However, it is to be seen that the complainant in his complaint has failed to tell this Forum that he had sowed the adequate seeds of paddy in his nine acres of land. So, when it is not revealed by the complainant that 24 Kgs. of paddy seed was sufficient to sow the crop of nine acres, it cannot at all be concluded that the complainant has sowed the adequate seed of paddy and it cannot also be said that he did not mix the other seeds in the seeds purchased by him from the opposite party no.1. So, it cannot at all be concluded that the seed of paddy purchased by complainant from opposite party no.1 was defective. It can also not be said that the complainant used the adequate quantity of fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides and in such like circumstances, it cannot at all be said that seed of paddy was defective.
7. It is also not proved on record by the complainant as to how much crop per acre he took from the fields in question and how much crop was taken by other farmers in the same situation and as such, it cannot be concluded that as to how much damage has been caused in the fields in question.
8. Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002 issued to all the Deputy Director in the State in which it is directed by the Director Agriculture, 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, as per report Ex.C4, the filed of the complainant was inspected only by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and the report is bearing his signatures only. This report is not conclusive and the same is defective one. Even, no notice was issued to Ops for spot verification.
9. So, complainant has failed to prove his case from all angles and report of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer 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:14.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
