BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no79 of 2012
Date of Institution : 20.4.2012
Date of Decision : 19.8.2016
- Jagdish son of Sh.Ram Lal, r/o village Mehmadpuria, Tehsil Rania Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Gandhi Sales Corporation, Janta Bhawan, Shop no.9, Sirsa through its proprietor.
- Haryali Kisan Bazar, Division DCM Shri Ram Consolidated Ltd., 6th Floor, Kanchanjanga Building, 18 Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi-110001 through its Divisional 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.K.R.Pilania Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for Op no.1.
Sh.K.R.Jindal , Advocate for Opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is agriculturist and having the land , fully detailed in para no.1 of the complaint. On 20.4.2010, on the assurance of Op no.1 regarding quality and germination of seed, the complainant had purchased 4 packets of BT cotton 6488 from Op no.1 vide bill dt. 20.4.2010 for total sum of Rs.3700/- . Op no.1 had also supplied Non BT weighing 110 grams with per packet as per the scheme of the company. Op no.2 is the manufacturer of said seed. The complainant sown the said seeds in his land as per the direction of Op no.1, but the Non BT seeds were not germinated in his fields. The complainant approached Ops, but they did not pay any heed. He also moved an application to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa, who got inspected the fields through SDAO, Rania and Sh.Bhagi Ram ADO. Said officials inspected the fields of complainant and found that there is no germination of Non BT in the fields and due to that the total crops have been badly damaged. Thus, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.60,000/-. Hence, this complaint for compensation alongwith damages for harassment, humiliation and litigation expenses etc.
2. Opposite party no.1 in his written statement, admitted the sale of BT cotton seed to the complainant being authorized dealer of Op no.2. It is further pleaded that the seed was duly manufactured and packed by op no.2. Whereas, Op no.2 in his written statement has pleaded that opposite party no.1 is neither dealer nor agent nor purchaser of seeds from Op no.2 and Op no.1 has never purchased the alleged BT cotton seed from op no.2. Op no.2 further replied that no seeds have ever been purchased by the complainant from him, as such, he is not their consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It is also contended that Ops have never received any letter or notice from the agriculture department regarding the alleged spot inspection. All other averments have also been denied.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1, cash memo Ex.C2, letter dt. 10.10.2011 Ex.C3, inspection report Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, jamabandi Ex.C6 and mutation Ex.C7 whereas the respondents have tendered their affidavits Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsels for the parties.
5. The main dispute in this complaint is that Non BT cotton seed sold by the respondent no. 1 has not been germinated and for that reason, his total crop has been affected and he suffered losses. The complainant case is depend upon the report Ex.C5 of the Agriculture department. We carefully gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. No sample of seed was sent to the Lab. for analysis. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the official of the agriculture department has also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the official of the agriculture department. From report Ex.C5 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. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant simply on the basis of a self serving affidavit when there is no evidence with respect to the less germination and it can be said that the complainant had really suffered any loss due to defective seed. Further, as per the report Ex.C5 crop was sown only 3-4 days earlier from the date of inspection which was carried out on 2.6.2010.
6. 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 consisting with total four members, two officer of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. In this report, it is mentioned that this report was prepared only by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and is bearing his signatures. This report is not conclusive and the same is defective one. Even, no notice was issued to Ops for spot verification.
7. So, complainant is failed to prove his case from all angles and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law.
8. 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: 19.8.2016 District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
