THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 481 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 02.12.2013.
Date of Decision: -13.11.2015.
Ranbir Singh son of Shri Tara Chand, resident of village Morwala Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Chodhary Agriculture Store, Near Punjab National Bank, Loharu Road, Ch. Dadri, District Britani through its owner/proprietor.
- Kaveri Seeds Company Limited, 513-B, 5th Floor, Minerya Complex S.D. Road, Sikandrabad-500003 (A.P.) through its M.D./proprietor.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Naveen Saini, Advocate for complainant
Shri Ashwani Chaudhary, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased 20 bags of gawar cluster seeds of brand Kaveri-III pertaining to lot No. 99001 @ Rs. 600/- per bag total amounting to Rs. 12000/- vide bill receipt No. 1035 dated 14.06.2013 from OP no. 1. The complainant alleged that in spite of best efforts made by him the growth of the Gawar Crops could not be up to mark and it gave grains at big height as a result of which the grains remained smaller and less in quantity & as such there was short fall in production of Gawar. The complainant alleged that the other farmers also purchased the Gawar Seeds of the aforesaid quality. The complainant and other farmers approached the officers of the agriculture Department Haryana DDA at Bhiwani and requested for the inspection of the crops. The complainant alleged that the DDA Bhiwani, constituted a committee for the inspection of the Gawar Crops and the committee inspected the Gawar Crops & gave its report dated 25.10.2013. The complainant visited many times to OP no. 1 and also served a legal notice but to no avail. 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.He
2. On appearance, Ops have filed written statement alleging therein that they are not guilty to sale of any defective goods to the complainant. It is submitted that the report submitted by the complainant does not depict any deformity or defect of any kind. It is submitted that the OP no. 2 is a reputed co. and the seed manufactured is got tested time to time. It is submitted that the agricultural officer did not mention the field number that in which field he inspected the site and there is no report of the concerned Patwari to show the field numbers. It is submitted that the complainant never give any information to the answering respondents regarding the site inspection, therefore the answering respondents are not liable for any loss if accrued to the complainant in any manner. It is submitted that the complainant himself must have been negligent for taking the care of the crop, if the same was sowed. It is further submitted that there is no Khasara Girdawari produced by the complainant. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record affidavit Annexure CW1/A and Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that due to the inferior quality of seed, the complainant has suffered huge losses. In support of his contention he relied upon the inspection report dated 25.10.2013 Annexure C-3. He also referred the following judgments:
I M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy in Civil Appeal No. 7543 of 2004 dated 16.01.2012 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
II Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Arvind Bajirao Borkar & Ors. in Revision Petition No. 1412 of 2013 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
III Ankur Seeds (P) Ltd. Vs. Kondabrolu Hasen Rao and Ors. in F.A. No. 1243 to 1246 of 2005 dated 04.10.2007 of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission, Hyderabad.
6. Learned counsel for Opposite Parties reiterated the contents of their reply. He submitted that the inspection committee did not call the representative of the Ops for the inspection of the fields of the complainant, and moreover the said inspection report does not mention that the quality of seed was inferior, hence the said inspection report cannot be taken into consideration. He further submitted that the complainant has not produced the Khasara Girdawari to show the area under cultivation for the said seed.
7. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant in support of his contention has heavily relied upon the inspection report Annexure C-3. The inspection committee in his report dated 25.10.2013 Annexure C-3 has concluded as under:
“because the variety of Gawar seed Kaveri-III is not approved by the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. Therefore the Agriculture Department is enable to report about the growth of crops of this variety of seed, and only the seed producer company is competent to tell about it.”
The inspection committee has not mentioned a single word about the quality of seed. As per inspection report, the inspection committee inspected the fields of the four farmers, who have sowed the said same variety of seed and the inspection committee has found the growth of the crop was six feet in the field of the farmers Rajpal and Dharampal and the growth of crop was 3 ½ and 4 feet in the field of the Satyawan. With the same variety of seed the growth of crop is different in the fields of the different farmers. The germination of seed and the yield of crop depends on various factors viz.. soil condition, moisture, period of sowing, climate, application of fertilizers and pesticides etc.
8. The complainant has not produced any laboratory test report as envisaged under Section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act regarding the quality of seed as alleged by him. In the absence of laboratory test report it cannot be inferred that the seed was of inferior quality.
9. Taking into account the totality of facts and the hardship cause to the complainant, we deem a moderate amount of compensation be awarded to the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 1500/- as litigation cost to the complainant against the Ops. The OP no. 1 shall be liable to pay the 20% of the aforesaid amount and the remaining 80% shall be paid by the OP no. 2. 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: 13.11.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
