DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 59 of 25.02.2008<br /> Decided on : 26-06-2008<br /> <br /> Gurtej Singh S/o Sh. Nachattar Singh, R/o Village Kothe Kame Ke, Sivian Road, Bathinda, now resident of Village Dalelwala, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.<br /> <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Gill Seeds (An Agro Unit of Jodh & Tej Estates Pvt. Ltd) Regd. Office 545, Viveka Nand Marg, Near Mausima Temple, Bhuwneshwar 2 (Orissa) through its M.D.<br /> 2.Grewal Agro Tech. Seeds, 12, Vill. Chak Ram Singh Wala, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda through its Prop/Partner Pardeep Singh S/o Manmohan Singh, R/o Vill. Chak Ram Singh Wala, District Bathinda.<br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. H.S. Dhanoa, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Pardeep Sharma,Advocate, for opposite party No. 1.. <br /> Sh. Manjit Dhamija, Advocate, for opposite party No. 2.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. complainant is an agriculturist and is cultivating 3 acres of land. Opposite parties had pasted pamphlets in the area of District Bathinda including village Kothe Kame Ke inducing farmers to grow Research Hybrid Cotton Seeds manufactured by opposite party No. 1 as they are duly researched seeds and yield 13 to 16 Qntls per acre crop. It was further represented that seeds are anti-insecticides and plants are not infected by the pests. Opposite party No. 2 is the authorised dealer of opposite party No. 1. Due to the tall claims made and assurances given by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 about cotton seeds, complainant purchased 5 Boxes from them for a consideration of Rs. 3750/- @Rs. 750/- per Box vide bill No. 22 dated 19.5.07. seeds were sown by taking proper precautions. DAP and urea fertilizers of the value of approximately Rs. 2,000/- were used for the crop. Insecticides worth Rs. 6,000/- were sprayed. Besides this, huge amount was spent for labour and irrigation purposes. There was germination. Cotton plants had developed but they did not bear flowers/bolls(Tinde). Opposite party No. 2 was approached. Its representative after inspecting the field had assured that everything would be alright and the plants would bear bolls and yield would be as described in the pamphlets but the plants did not bear bolls as seeds were sub-standard and of poor quality. Criminal case under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and 3/9 of Seeds Control Order and Section 7 of Seeds Act of 1996 against opposite party No. 2 vide FIR No. 143 dated 27.11.07 in Police Station Nathana has been registered. Opposite party No. 2 was approached to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.50 Lacs for damages to the crop and for mental tension, agony botheration, harassment and humiliation. Registered A.D. post legal notice was also served upon the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply to the notice has refused to compensate to him. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 2.50 Lacs for damages to his crop, mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and Rs. 5500/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Separate replies of the complaint have been filed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Legal objections taken by them are almost similar. They are that complainant is not consumer; complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file it; specific Khasra numbers of the land have not been mentioned in the complaint; complainant himself is negligent in his act and conduct as he did not take care of his alleged land/crop properly; opposite party No. 2 is merely an agent of opposite party No. 1 and it has sold seeds for and on behalf of opposite party No. 1 in sealed packing. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved which require oral, documentary evidence and lengthy cross examination which is not possible before this Forum in summary procedure and as such appropriate remedy if any lies with the civil court. Complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum and complaint is vague. Opposite party No. 1 has specifically mentioned in its letter that if seeds fail to germinate and grow, they are responsible for it and they are ready to pay compensation. Complainant has unnecessarily impleaded opposite party No. 2 as party. Neither DNA test nor expert opinion regarding loss of crop has been obtained by the complainant. Fields were not weed free and fertilizers and pesticides treatment was not followed. Opposite parties No. 1 alleges that complaint has been preferred to spoil its reputation. They admit that opposite party No. 1 had got pasted pamphlets for the farmers to grow research high Brid cotton seeds. There is no denial about the purchase of boxes of cotton seeds by the complainant from opposite party No. 2 which were manufactured and produced by opposite party No. 1. In his letter dated 12.11.07 Agriculture Officer, Bathinda has written that at the time of inspection of land height of the plants was 10 to 12 feet per plant, In para No. 4 of the pamphlets it has been mentioned that farmer should cut the plants after they attain the height of 5-6 ft for proper/good crop. Complainant allowed the plants to grow upto 10 to 12 feet. In this manner, he himself is negligent. Complainant and his other companions namely Resham Singh, Darbara Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Baljit Singh, Baltej Singh and Jagjit Singh have hatched a conspiracy to harass and humiliate opposite party No. 1. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of pamphlet (Ex. C-2), photocopy of Invoice (Ex. C-3), photographs (Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6), photocopy of Bail Petition (Ex. C-7), copy of legal notice (Ex. C-8), photocopy of reply of legal notice (Ex. C-9), Invoices (Ex. C-10 to Ex. C-12), Undelivered R.C. (Ex. C-13) and postal receipts (Ex. C-14 & Ex. C-15).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No. 1 affidavit of Deljit Singh, M.D (Ex. R-1), photocopy of pamphlet (Ex. R-2) and on behalf of opposite party No. 2 three affidavits of S/Sh. Pardeep Grewal, Proprietor, Jaspreet Singh and Inderjit Singh (Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-5), photocopies of bills (Ex. R-6 & Ex. R-7), photocopy of certificate (Ex. R-8), photocopy of affidavit of Sh. Deljit Singh, M.D. (Ex. R-9) and photocopy of pamphlet (Ex. R-10) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Onus to prove the averments in the complaint is upon the complainant. He is required to substantiate them by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. There is no dispute about the purchase of cotton seeds by the complainant from opposite party No. 2 vide Invoice dated 19.5.07, copy of which is Ex. C-3. Material question for determination is as to whether complainant had sown the cotton seeds manufactured by opposite party No. 1 and purchased from its dealer/agent i.e. opposite party No. 2 and the cotton seeds did not bear bolls. Complainant has made an attempt to prove it by way of his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of the photographs Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6 and the receipts/Invoices Ex. C-10 to Ex. C-12 vide which insecticides etc., were purchased by him from M/s. Subash Trading Company on 20.8.07, 3.9.07 and 24.7.07 respectively for consideration of Rs. 2250/-, 370/- and 2940/- respectively. Against this evidence of the complainant, there are affidavits of S/Sh. Deljit Singh, Managing Director, Pardeep Grewal, Jaspreet Singh and Inderjit Singh which are Ex. R-1 and Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-5 respectively. Mere purchase of the cotton seeds by the complainant does not establish that those seeds were actually sown by him in the land in the revenue limits of village Kothe Kame Ke. No revenue record has been produced by him to show that he owns or possesses any piece of land in the revenue limits of village Kothe Kame Ke or otherwise he had taken some land for cultivation purposes in the area of this village. He did not deem it fit to place on record copies of Jamabandi or Khasra Girdwari showing that cotton crop was sown by him in any field in the area of this village. Sole affidavit Ex. C-1 of the complainant does not advance his cause. So far as Ex. C-3 is concerned, it merely indicates the purchase of cotton seeds by him from opposite party No. 2. In this document, village of the complainant has been recorded as Dalelwala . Similarly Invoices Ex. C-10 to Ex. C-12 show the purchase of insecticides etc., by him from Mansa and address of the complainant is of village Dalelwala, District Mansa. There is substantive evidence before us on the basis of which it can be concluded that the purchased cotton seeds were certainly sown by him in the land in the area of village Kothe Kame Ke. Hence very basis of superstructure raised by the complainant by way of making the story in the complaint is incredible.<br /> 7. Complainant alleges that seeds were sub-standard and of poor quality. As discussed above, he has failed to establish that seeds were sown by him in the land. He did not get the seeds analysed from any Laboratory to prove his allegation that they were of poor quality and sub-standard. Even if it is taken for arguments sake that seeds were sown although we do not subscribe to it, even then, it was for the complainant to prove that plants did not bear bolls. He could get the crop inspected atleast from some Agriculture Officer/Chief Agriculture Officer. There is no evidence that any complaint was made by him to any higher authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Senior Superintendent of Police, concerned S.H.O. or the Chief Agriculture Officer against the opposite parties that the plants grown with the seeds purchased did not bear bolls and it has been damaged. This also gives jolt to the story of the complainant. Atleast he could raise hue and cry before the Panchayat of the Village. Fact that he remained sitting folded handed leads us to the inference that the story manufactured by him is made up one.<br /> 8. In view of our foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in this case. Accordingly complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be also consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 26-06-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member<br /> 'iki' <br />