BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.223 of 2012
Date of Institution : 19.11.2012
Date of Decision : 22.1.2016
Baljinder Singh son of Sh.Surjit Singh, r/o village Shamshabad Patti, tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Gupta Fertilizers, Shop no.18, Sirsa Club, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa through its Authorized person/Manager (Authorized dealer).
- Antal Agro Seeds, Shop No. 207, New Mandi Township, Ambala City (Manufacturing Company and Distributors of the seeds Paddy Crop namely Pb-6(1401) through its Managing Director/Authorized person.
- Zamindara Khadh Bhadar, Shop no.62, New Anaj Mandi,Sirsa-125055 through its Dealer/Distributor.
...…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. Mukhtiar Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that he is agriculturist and having agricultural land in village Shamshabad Patti, tehsil and distt. Sirsa. On 16.5.2012, the complainant had purchased 10 bags of Paddy seed PB-6 (Puse-1401), lot No. Oct. 11-07-276-08 Anttal Agro Seeds, Ambala vide bill no.503 dt. 16.5.2012 from OP no.1 on the assurance of OP no.1 regarding originality of seeds and its better result. Op no.2 is the manufacturer of paddy seeds. The complainant sown the seed in 2-1/2 acres of land, as per the instructions of Op no.1, but there was less production of flowers/plants of the paddy crop. Thereafter, the complainant approached to Agricultural Officer, Sirsa, who got inspected the spot by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer alongwith Agriculture Development Officer, Sirsa, in the presence of officials of Op no.1 as well as other respectable of the village. The abovesaid officers reported the less production of flowers/plant of paddy crop due to the result of spurious/inferior quality of the seeds and declared the exact loss of 90% to the crop of complainant. Thus, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,38,600/- due to less crop.
2. Opposite parties by filing their separate replies contested the case. Opposite party no.1 has admitted the sale of paddy seed to the complainant. It is further pleaded that Op no.1 being the retailer had sold the abovesaid seed quality to the complainant in the original packed and sealed condition in which the same was received by him from the distributor (OP no.3) of manufacturing company-Op no.2. Seed sold to the complainant was of genuine and good quality, but the complainant while sowing the same into his fields has not followed the instructions about its sowing. The alleged report has been got prepared by the complainant in collusion with Agriculture Authorities. The alleged seed in question is a paddy seed and about its character and identification, only breeder can tell and explain. Therefore, the alleged inspection report cannot be relied upon. Opposite party no.2, in its reply has pleaded that minimum 10 kg seeds should be sown for one acre of land, but the complainant sown 10 kgs. seed in his 2-1/2 acres of land. It is further pleaded that from the report, it is nowhere clarified that the inspection was done on the land in which the complainant sowed the alleged seed. The report is not based on scientific and technical basis. It cannot be proved that seeds are defective and thus, the report is not believable. It is further pleaded that the crop depends upon other factors including water quality; long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, showing methodology, moister and soil physical condition etc. Opposite party no.3 has also pleaded on the similar lines of Ops no.1 and 2. Other averments have also been denied by the opposite parties.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record various documents i.e. Ex.CW/A1- his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C1-forwarding letter of inspection report; Ex.C2- inspection report; Ex.C3- bill dt. 16.5.2012; whereas the respondents have tendered Ex.R1 –affidavit of Sh.Surinder Kumar Gupta, proprietor of OP no.1; Ex.R2—affidavit of Sh.Hardeep Singh, proprietor of OP no.2; Ex.R3-affidavit of Sh.Rishi Bansal, proprietor of OP no.3; Ex.R4-letter of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dt. 3.1.2002; Ex.R5-registration certificate of Op no.2; Ex.R6- renewal of licence ; Ex.R7-salient features of variety; Ex.R8 and Ex.R9- copies of characteristics of varieties;Ex.R10 and Ex.R11- cash memo; Ex.R12-Invoice; Ex.R13-Grower list of paddy; Ex.R14- Haryana State Certification Agency, Karnal bill of Rs.13430; Ex.R15-final production list of Anttal seed, Ambala; Ex.R16-invoice dt. 17.10.2011; Ex.R17-copy of primary operation register; Ex.R18-quality control register; Ex.R19-bill dt. 10.1.2012; Ex.R20- forwarding letter of test report and Ex.21- Seed sale report.
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. Due to this 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, the spot was inspected by the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Agriculture Development Officer, Sirsa who gave a report on dated 18.10.2012(Ex.C2). The 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 of Ex.C2 given by Agriculture Department, there is no khasra/killa number in which the complainant has allegedly sown the seeds. 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 the seeds were defected. The case of the complainant depends upon report Ex.C2 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 that seed sold by the OP no.1 to the complainant was defective or adulterated and sub standard. There is no clarification in the report as to why the inspection team has 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.C2, the identity of the land cannot 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 crop. It cannot 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, the committee was consisted of only two members i.e. Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Agriculture Development Officer, Sirsa. This report is not conclusive and the same is defective one. Even, no notice was issued to Ops for spot verification.
9. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on record any document i.e. jamabandi and khasra girdawari regarding the identity of the land. Without the abovesaid documents, it is not proved that the complainant is the owner in possession of the abovesaid land and also it is not established on record that what crop was sown by the complainant in the said land. As per cash memo, the complainant purchased only 10 kgs. seed for 2-1/2 acre land, but the said seed is not sufficient as per the norms of the company. As per literature of company, minimum 10-12 kgs. seed is required for one acre of land. So, the complainant is failed to prove his case from all angles and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law.
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 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. 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. Presiding Member,
Dated:22.1.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Baljinder Singh Vs. M/s Gupta Fertilizer
Present: Sh. Mukhtiar Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
Arguments heard. For order to come up on 22.1.2016.
Dated:14.1.2016.
Member. Presiding Member,
DCDRF,Sirsa.
