BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 272 of 2011
Date of Institution : 8.12.2011
Date of Decision : 19.1.2016
Bhim Singh son of Hem Raj, r/o village Kairanwali, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Ganesh Pesticides through its authorized signatory/Prop. Ram Chander Jangra, situated at Bhadra Road, Harish Nagar, Nathusari Chopta, Sirsa (Authorized Distributor).
- Kurnool Seeds Pvt. Ltd., H.No.81/5A-2-3-II Raghavendra Nagar, Kurnool, Hyderabad-518003 (Manufacturer of KCH-707 Cotton Seeds) through its authorized person/responsible person.
- Kurnool Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office-5, SCF Addl.Mandi Sirsa through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SH.RAJIV MEHTA…… MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.S.Bhakar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh.G.S.Rana, Advocate for opposite parties no.2&3.
ORDER
In brief, case of the complainant is that he is owner in possession of 1/3rd share of agricultural land measuring 132 kanal 14 marla, situated in village Kairanwali, distt. Sirsa. The complainant after believing upon the quality of seeds sold by opposite party no.1, purchased 08 packets of BG-II KCH-707 Cotton seeds Batch No.9215 weighing 450 gm. per packet vide bill no.603 dt. 17.5.2011. Opposite party no.2 is the manufacturing company of said seed. After purchase, the complainant sown the said seed in his about four acre land, fully mentioned in para no.6 of complaint. The production of cotton crop would have been about 40 monds per acre i.e. 160 monds but it was merely about 12 monds and thus, there was less flower and Vocky on the plants in the crop due to misbranded/defective seed. Thus, the complainant suffered financial loss to the tune of about Rs.2,36,800/-. Therefore, the complainant approached to the Agriculture department, Sirsa, who got inspected the spot by A.P.P.O. , Sirsa and prepared a report dated 18.10.2011 and reported the damage and loss to the land due to “No flower/Vocky” of cotton crop into his land. Hence, this complaint for compensation alongwith damages for harassment, humiliation and litigation expenses etc.
2. Opposite parties, in their written statements, admitted the sale of said cotton seed to the complainant. It is pleaded that the seed sold by respondent no.1 was a certified seed and was sold in the same packed and sealed condition. At the time of purchase of seed, the complainant was satisfied about its quality, packing and seals affixed on the same. The alleged inspection report prepared by the officials of agriculture department is not a scientific, technical and is highly defective one and cannot be used against the ops because the report does not contain any identification of the land i.e. killa number and khasra numbers. From the report, it is no where clarified that the inspection was done on the land in which the complainant sowed the said seed. Moreover, no notice regarding the inspection of field of complainant was given to the respondents. It is further pleaded the variation in the condition of crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed, rather it may be due to soil condition, moisture content and climate conditions. There was no defect in the seed sold to the complainant. All other averments have been denied.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record various documents i.e. Ex.CW1/A-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.CW2/A- affidavit of Sh.Duli Chand Patwari; Ex.C1-bill dt. 17.5.2011; Ex.C2-application for inspection of fields; Ex.C3- covering letter of report ; Ex.C3/1-inspection report; Ex.C4-jamabandi; Ex.C5-report of Patwari, whereas the respondents have tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of Ram Chander Jangra, proprietor of OP no.1; Ex.RW1/A-affidavit of Ram Gopal Gurjar, Manager of Op no.2; Ex.RW-1-authority letter issued by Op no.2; Ex.RW2-instruction of Govt. of India regarding commercialization of seed.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The main dispute in this complaint is that adulterated, inferior quality and sub standard seed was sold by the respondent no.1 and there was less flower and Vocky on the cotton bowl in the crop. Due to this misbranded and adulterated seed the total production of the land of the complainant was very less. The complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa for inspection of the standing crop and to give the report. On the direction of Deputy Director Agriculture, on 18.10.2011 the spot was inspected by the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Agricultural Development Officer, Nathusari Chopta who gave a report on dated 23.10.2011 Ex.C3/1. The cotton crop was less/produced as promised by the OP no.1.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has argued that in the report Ex.C3/1 given by Agriculture Department, there is no khasra/killa number in which the complainant has allegedly sown the cotton seeds. It is further argued that in the report, the inspection team have nowhere mentioned that less production was due to defective or sub standard seed. Moreover, the alleged inspection has not been made in the presence of Ops.
7. On careful examination of the documents and affidavits of the parties
and hearing of the arguments of learned counsels for the parties, it is clear that the complainant failed to prove that there was less flower and Vocky due to defective seeds. The case of the complainant depends upon report Ex.C3/1 of the officers 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 whether seed sold by the OP no.1 to the complainant was defective or adulterated? There is no clarification in the report as to why the inspection team have not taken the samples of this lot, which was mandatory. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officials of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officials of the agriculture department. From report Ex.C3/1, 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 cotton crop. It can not be said that the complainant had really suffered any loss due to defective seed.
8. 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. But in this case, committee was consisted of two members i.e. Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Agriculture Development Officer, Nathusari Chopta, but there are signatures of only APPO, who is not the Member of the committee. Moreover, no notice was issued to ops for spot verification.
9. There is no copy of khasra girdawari on the file that which crop was sown in the field. Without the khasra girdawari, it is very difficult to conclude by this Forum that which crop was sown in that killa. Complainant has failed to produce the essential document like as khasra girdawari etc.
10. The learned counsel for respondent produced the latest judgments titled Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop (NC) in Revision petition no.1295 of 2014 decided on 26.11.2014; Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bhup Singh (NC) in Revision petition no.2144 of 2014 decided on 9.4.2015; Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Jagdish (NC) in Revision petition no.2143 of 2014 decided on 9.4.2015 and Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Sunder Lal (NC) in Revision petition no.2502 of 2014 decided on 9.4.2015. In the above mentioned judgments/revision their Lordship discussed above all the mentioned facts and accepted the revisions of petitioner (IFFCO) and declined the pleas of respondent/complainant.
11. Learned counsel for respondent also produced the judgment titled Gujarat State Coop. Mktg. Federation Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyambhai Fulabhai Patel, III(2011) CPJ 433 (NC), wherein it is held that poor germination of seeds cannot always be attributed to quality of the seeds, as germination depends on many factors, including type of irrigation, fertility of soil, proper use of pesticides, fertilizers, sufficient quality and sufficient quantity of the seeds.
12. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, we leave the parties to bear their own cost. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:19.1.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Bhim Singh Vs. M/s Ganesh Pesticides etc
Present: Sh.R.S.Bhakar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh.G.S.Rana, Advocate for opposite parties no.2&3.
Arguments heard. For order to come up on 19.1.2016.
Dated:14.1.2016.
Member. Presiding Member,
DCDRF,Sirsa.
