BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.5 of 2013
Date of Institution : 2.1.2013
Date of Decision : 20.1.2016
Raghuveer Singh, aged about 28 years son of Sh.Dharam Pal son of Sh.Mani Ram, r/o village Bani-1, tehsil Rania 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 Plant works, Nanewal Road, Village and Post Office Chormastpur, Ambala Distt. Ambala through its Managing Director/Proprietor.
- Zamindara Khadh Bhadar, Shop no.62, New Anaj Mandi,Sirsa, tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its proprietor.
...…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.D.L.Gupta 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 Bani, tehsil Rania distt. Sirsa. On 15.5.2012, the complainant had purchased 2 bags of Paddy seed PB-6 (Puse-1401), lot No. Oct. 11-07-276-08 weighing 10 kgs. each for total sum of Rs.1100/- from OP no.1 on the assurance of OP no.1 that this seed is of very good quality and Op no.2 is the manufacturer of paddy seeds. The complainant sowed the seed in 7 acres 6 kanals 18 marlas of land, fully detailed in para no.2 of the complaint, which stands in the name of his father Dharam Pal. Seed was sowed as per the directions of Op no.1, but there was no proper yield due to supply of defective paddy seeds. Thereafter, the complainant approached to OP no.1 and requested to visit the spot. The Op no.1 called the expert/representative of Op no.2 and visited the field of complainant and admitted the defect in the crops, but he refused to pay the compensation. Thereafter, the complainant made complaint to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, who deputed Sh.Sukh Raj Singh Kamboj, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Bhagirath Dusad, Agriculture Development Officer, Rania. The abovesaid officer visited the field of complainant and inspected the crop and made report to the effect that the paddy seeds were defective and there was 90% less production of paddy. Thus, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.3,50,000/- 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 i.e. OP no.3 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 only 20 kgs. seed in his 7.86 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, sowing methodology, moister and soil physical condition etc. The complainant has not produced any document regarding execution of lease deed nor any khasra girdawari to show that he sown the crop of paddy in the fields of lease. 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.C1-affidavit of his father Sh.Dharam Pal; Ex.C2-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C3-bill dt. 15.5.2012; Ex.C4-inspection report;Ex.C5-jamabandi, 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.1; 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- Form VAT-G1; Ex.R3-licence issued to Op no.1; Ex.R4-; Ex.R5-slip regarding seeds; Ex.R6 to Ex.R11-delivery challans; Ex.R12-list of farmers; Ex.R13-stock register; 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, Rania who gave a report on dated 8.11.2012(Ex.C4). 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.C4 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.C4 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. 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.C4, 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, only two members i.e. Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Agriculture Development Officer, Rania, inspected the spot. No notice was issued by them to ops for spot verification. Moreover, as per jamabandi, the land is in the name of his father Dharampal. There is nothing on record to prove that the complainant has been authorized by his father for cultivation of the land in question. As per specification, required seed for sowing the land was 10/12 kg. per acre, but the complainant purchased only 20 kgs. seed for his 7 acres of land i.e. very less.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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:20.1.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Raghuveer Singh Vs. M/s Gupta Fertilizer
Present: Sh.D.L.Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
Arguments heard. For order to come up on 20.1.2016.
Dated:14.1.2016.
Member. Presiding Member,
DCDRF,Sirsa.
