THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 94 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 30.03.2015.
Date of Decision: - 04.10.2017.
Manoj aged 50 years son of Shri Tirlok Singh, resident of village Chang and now resident of House No. 4, Old Housing Board, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Chaudhary Agriculture Store, SCF-3, Mandi Town Centre, New Grain Market, Bhiwani through its proprietor.
- Sungro Seeds Limited, Head Office 2nd Floor, Manish Chambers, B N Block, Local Shopping Centre, Shalimar Bagh (West), Delhi through its authorized signatory.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Sudesh, Member.
Shri Parmod Kumar, Member.
Present:- Shri Satender Proxy counsel of
Shri Sanjay Sheoran, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Sanesh Chaudhary, Advocate for OP No. 1.
None for OP No. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant is doing the agriculture work for the last 20-25 years to earn the livelihood and grow seasonal crop in his agriculture land such as cauliflower etc. It is alleged that this season he planted/sowed cauliflower (Podh) on 15.10.2014 after purchasing 400 gm Sungro company seeds from OP No.1 alongwith MOP by paying Rs.2400/- and Rs.800/- respectively vide bill No.6190 on 14.10.2014 which was produced and manufactured by OP No.2 and transplanted the same in 10 Kanal land on 15.11.2014. It is alleged that the OP No.1 assured that the seed so produced and manufactured by OP No.2 was very superior quality and good yielding and the farmers sowing this brand seeds. It is alleged that the complainant had incurred about Rs.51,260/- on the crop of cauliflower and also followed all the steps, which are necessary for the cauliflower framing, as he indulging on for the last 20 years and he is very much aware about the cauliflower farming but all the efforts of the complainant turn out to be vain because the size of the cauliflower is very small and its colour is also yellow due to which no one in market is ready to purchase it and the complainant is forced to sell it as waste i.e. Rs.1/- or 2/- for 5 kg cauliflower and in this way, complainant has suffered a huge loss of income due to low quality seeds suffered a huge loss of income due to low quality. It is alleged that the complainant contacted OP no.1 and complaint the matter but he refused that it is not his business and said that seeds are produced and manufactured by OP No.2 and only the company is responsible for the defect. It is alleged that the complainant wrote a letter to the OP no. 2 with the request to make good the losses suffered by him. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.HeHe
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has also failed to produce the bills regarding the amounts spent on purchasing pesticides fertilizers etc. It is submitted that the complainant has purchased the seeds from the answering respondent or its agent and it was necessary to carry out the inspection of his fields in the presence of the answering respondent or its any representatives. It is submitted that the answering respondent is not manufacturer of the seed and whatever the consumer demands the dealer gives it to the consumer and respondent has no control over it and he is bound to it that as for use of any seed is concerned. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP No.2 filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant purchased the seed of Sungro company on 14.10.2014 when the last date of sowing this seed is earlier and the amount shown by the complainant is exaggerated. It is submitted that the complainant never came to the dealer or company to complain as he mentioned but when a letter posted by complainant came to the office of the company, the panel of the company visited the farm of the complainant and found this crop not properly and in time mentioned by the company in literature and the complainant must visited to O/o Deputy Director, Agriculture and filed a complaint in that office. It is submitted that the answering respondent has not adopted unfair trade practice. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C11 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. On the other hand, OP placed on record Annexure R2/1.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant purchased the cauliflower seed from OP no. 1 vide bill Annexure C-1 manufactured by OP no. 2. But the seed supplied by the OPs was of poor quality the cauliflower crop from the seed in question was very small and its colour was yellow. Thus the complainant suffered huge losses amounting to Rs.3,64,000/-. The OPs are liable to pay the claim to the complainant. He referred the report of Local Commission.
8. Learned counsels for OP No.1 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant has filed the false complaint against the OPs to grab money taking the shelter of poor seed. He submitted that yield of crop depends on various factors like time of sowing, irrigation and the moisture in the soil. He submitted that the complainant has not obtained any expert opinion regarding the quality of the seed. He submitted that the local commission vide his report dated 5.4.2015 has opined that the seed was of poor quality. He submitted that the said Local Commission never called the opposite parties for the inspection of the crop of the complainant. The complainant has not produced any Fard Jamabandi and Khasra Girwadari in support of his allegations. Learned counsel for the OP relied upon the following judgment:-
I Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ajaib Singh & Anr. III (2012) CPJ 123 of Hon’ble State Commission, Panchkula.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant has replied upon the report of local commission. The local commission has not mentioned the area, killa number of the fields visited by him. He has not mentioned the area which was under the cultivation for cauliflower and inspection by him. The local commission in his conclusion has mentioned that the crop condition of the farmer field is very good due to management but the curd size and colour is very poor and mentioned in a one time that “the farmer gets a great loss of Rs. 2.5 lakh to 3.0 lakh depend on market fluctuation”. He has not given any basis to arrive the alleged amount of loss and he has not given the grounds on which he has mentioned that the quality of seed is poor. Admittedly, no notice was given by the local commission to the opposite parties for the inspection of the crop of the complainant. In view of said discussion, the report of local commission cannot be relied upon. Taking into account each and every aspect of the case, we come to this conclusion that the complainant has failed to adduce cogent evidence to prove that the seed supplied by the OP was of poor quality. The complainant has not obtained any analysis of seed from the recognized laboratory as envisaged under Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any substance in the complaint of the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merits. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:. 04.10.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member.
