BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 70 of 2019                                                                          

                                                        Date of Institution         :    12.2.2019

                                                          Date of Decision   :    27.08.2019.

Amit Kumar son of Sh. Pardeep Kumar, caste Bishnoi, aged about 30 years, resident of village Rampura Bishnoian, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.

                                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. M/s Gurunanak Pesticides, Main Chowk, Goriwala through authorized person.

2. M/s. Ankur Seeds Care of Shanti Fertilizers, Chotha Mill Pathar Sirsa Road, Hisar, through its authorized person.

3. M/s. Ankur Seeds, 27 New Cotton Mandi Leyout, Nagpur(Maharashter) through authorized person.

4. Agriculture Department, District Sirsa through Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa.  

                   ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

          SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………… MEMBER. 

Present:       Ms. Poonam Kataria,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3.

                   Sh. H.R. Singla, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is agriculturist having his agricultural land in village Rampura Bishnoian, Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa and he and his family members are fully dependent upon the income from agriculture land. The complainant also cultivates the land of his father Pardeep Kumar and brother Ramit Kumar. That on 10.4.2017 complainant approached op no.1 and asked him about the best quality of seed of Narma crop to be sown in his fields upon which op no.1 stated that he has best quality of seeds and preferred to sow quality of Ankur seed 3028 VG-2 and assured that it will give best yield. It is further averred that after knowing about kind of soil of the fields of complainant, nature and weather condition, source of irrigation and yield of previous year from the complainant, the op no.1 supplied the seed of Ankur company quality 3028 VG-2 alongwith seeds of other company. That op no.2 is dealer of this seed and op no.3 is manufacturer of this seed. It is further averred that op no.1 supplied 9 packets of above said seeds to the complainant on 10.4.2017,29.04.2017,30.04.2017 and 25.05.2017 for total sum of Rs.7010/-. The complainant sowed the said seeds in his 3¼ acres of land (A) comprising in Khewat No.25, Khasra N.9, Killa Nos. 16,24 and 25(B) khewat no.25, khasra no.26, killa no.9/1 as per instructions of op no.1 by appointing/hiring labourers in his supervision and he was expecting good yield of the crop. He also applied water, pesticides etc. purchased from op no.1 in the field as per instruction of op no.1. That after five months of sowing, the complainant found that height of the plants was not proper and there were no proper flowers on the plants due to which, complainant suffered mental harassment and he approached op no.1 in this regard but op no.1 did not pay any attention to the complaint of complainant. It is further averred that thereafter he showed the crop to his neighbourers and other farmers and they also stated that this is due to supply of inferior quality of seeds whereas the crop in the nearby fields of complainant was in good condition and if the crop of complainant was damaged due to nature of land, weather condition and source of irrigation then the crops of other farmers might have been damaged. That when the op no.1 did not give any attention to his several complaints, complainant moved an application on 25.10.2017 to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Sirsa upon which a special team of agriculture officers consisting of Block Agriculture Officer, Dabwali Sh. Surjit Singh, Agriculture Development Officer Ganga Sh. Rajesh Kumar and Block Technical Manager, Dabwali inspected the crop of his fields on 29.11.2017 and stated in their report dated 11.12.2017 that Crop of Narma is very weak and heights of plants are small, quantity of flowers (Tindas) is less and their size is also small than normal size and the flowers (tindas) were not properly grown up due to which there was crop loss of 50-60% to the complainant. It is further averred that normally yield of Narma crop in one acre is 16 quintal, but complainant get yield of only two quintals in one acre. That at the time of inspection of his field on 29.11.2017 by the agriculture department, the complainant alongwith his family members and other farmers of nearby fields were present and they requested the officers of agriculture department to call ops no.1 to 3 at the spot but they did not listen and knowingly with the connivance of ops no.1 to 3 did not call them at the spot. It is further averred that the complainant approached op no.1 and explained about the damage of crop due to supply of inferior quality of seeds and inspection of his field by agriculture department but even then he did not give any attention. That due to supply of inferior quality of seeds by ops no.1 to 3, the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental harassment. The complainant also got served a legal notice calling upon the ops to compensate him for the loss of crop but to no effect. That earlier due to non impleading of agriculture department as party for their lapses in preparing the report, the complainant withdrew the earlier complaint filed by him in this Forum. That act and conduct on the part of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared. Ops no.1 to 3 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as no defect in the seed is proved in the present complaint. In the spot inspection report, they have not mentioned the killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land, which was inspected by the officers of Agriculture Department and the officer/ official of the department has not given any finding that the alleged loss has occurred due to inferior quality of seed. From the report, it is no where clarified that the inspection was done on the land in which complainant used the said seed. So, the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further submitted that alleged spot inspection is stated to have been conducted on 29.11.2017, when the picking-up season is always over in normal course of nature. So, on 29.11.2017, there would have been no crop standing at the spot and thus, the said report appears to be manipulated one. Other preliminary objections regarding no cause of action, suppression of material facts, estoppal and jurisdiction are also taken. It is also submitted that complaint is bad for non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act as the complainant has not furnished the report of any expert/ lab. test report about the quality of the seeds. It is also submitted that alleged inspection report prepared by the officials of the Agriculture Department is not in accordance to the letter memo No.52-70/TA(SS) dated 3.1.2002 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana. So, the alleged spot inspection report is no report in the eyes of law and same is liable to be ignored. On merits, the contents of the complaint regarding suggesting of any specific quality of seed by op no.1 and making inquiry about his land etc. are denied. It is submitted that op no.1 sold and supplied the packets of seeds in which, the same were received from distributor/ manufacturing company. The op no.3 manufactures high quality and high standard cotton seeds, which are marketed, sold and supplied in the market through its distributors/ retailers. It is further submitted that no proof has been supplied by the complainant for sowing seeds in his land. The complainant at no point of time reported any defect in the seeds to the answering ops. The answering ops were not given any notice of alleged inspection nor were joined in the alleged spot inspection of the field of complainant. It is further submitted that notice got served by complainant through his counsel was duly replied by op no.1 wherein all the above aspects were made clear to the complainant, but even then, the complainant has filed this false and baseless complaint.  Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made. 

3.                Op no.4 filed separate reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that on the application of complainant, the officers/ officials of the agriculture department visited the field of complainant. The complainant was required to bring the Fard of his land and also to bring the village Patwari, so that his land may be identified at the spot, but the complainant neither producedd the copy of revenue record nor brought the village Patwari. The complainant was also required to intimate the shop keeper from whom he had purchased the seeds about the visit by the officers of the Department, but the complainant neither intimated the shop keeper nor brought him at the spot. It is further submitted that it is the complainant who in order to hide his own fault and negligence has levelled false allegations against the op and that complainant is not consumer of answering op, so he is not entitled to any compensation. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.4 made.

4.                The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sanjay Kumar Namberdar Ex.CW1/B, Ex.C1 legal notice, Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 copies of letters, Ex.C5 investigation report, Ex.C6 to Ex.C12 bills, Ex.C13 jamabandi of the year 2012-2013, Ex.C14 khasra girdawari, Ex. C15 to Ex.C17 copies of statements. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Agriculture Development Officer, office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa Ex.R1, affidavit of Rajinder Singh, proprietor Guru Nanak Pesticides Main Chowk, Goriwal, District Sirsa, Ex.R3 copy of letter, Ex.R4 affidavit of Sandeep Tyagi, Area Sales Manager M/s Rasi Seeds Care of Sidh Vinayak Complex, Hisar.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                As per the allegation of the complainant the complainant has purchased the seed of Rasi company quality RCH 773 VG-2 alongwith seeds of other company from op no.1 which was manufactured by ops no.2&3 and the same was sown by the complainant in his field. Further there are allegations that the complainant could not get the desired results of the cotton seeds as assured by the op no.1 at the time of purchase of the cotton seeds. Further there are allegations that the seed was defective due to which the height of the plants of the cotton crop was short and there was less yield of the crop which caused loss to the complainant. The complainant in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A has deposed and reiterated the averments made in his complaint. The complainant has relied upon the inspection report of the Agricultural Department, who visited at the field of the complainant on 29.11.2017 copy of which Ex.C5 is on the record. The perusal of inspection report Ex.C5 reveals that the official of the agricultural department did not mention the kila/khasra number of the land which was inspected by them. The report further reveals that they did not call the Halqua Patwari, Numberdar of the village or any respectable person of the village in order to join the inspection proceedings. They did not issue any notice of inspection to the ops before inspection nor they took sample of seed for sending the same to laboratory for analysist in order to get expert opinion that the seed supplied by op no.1 was defective and less crop of the complainant was due to defective seed of cotton. It was the legal obligation of the complainant to prove his allegations mentioned in the complaint qua the defective seed but the complainant has fully failed to prove that the seed purchased by him was defective by leading cogent and convincing evidence.

7.                On the other hand the op no. 4 has furnished his affidavit of Rajesh Kumar, Agriculture Development Officer, office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1 in which he has specifically deposed that the official of agricultural department visited the field of the complainant and the complainant was required to bring the Fard of this land and also bring the village Patwari. So, that his land may be identified at the spot, but the complainant neither produced the copy of revenue record nor the report of village Patwari. The complainant was also required to intimate the shopkeeper from whom the complainant had purchased the seeds. He has further deposed that the answering op cannot say that the field inspected at the spot actually belong to the complainant, as the complainant did not produced the revenue record nor produced Halqua Patwari at this spot.

8.                In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same stands dismissed, but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                                     President,

Dated:27.08.2019.                             Member                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                Redressal Forum, Sirsa.