BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 31 of 2011
Date of Institution : 1.2.2011
Date of Decision : 05/05/2016
- Prithvi Ram, aged 60 years son of Sh.Birbal Ram, r/o V.P.O. Mithi Surera, tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
- Mahabir s/o Sh.Balwant Singh, r/o village Mithi Surera, tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
- Haryali Kisan Bazar through its authorized person/Manager (Authorized Dealer) vill. Pohadka, the. Ellenabad distt. Sirsa.
- Haryali Kisan Bazar (A division of DCM Shri Ram Consolidated Ltd., 6th Floor, Kanchanjanga Building, 18 Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director/Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA …………PRESIDENT
SH.RAJIV MEHTA…… ..MEMBER.
Present: Sh.M.R.Beniwal Advocate for complainant.
Sh.K.R.Jindal , Advocate for Opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainants are agriculturists. The complainant no.2 is the lease holder of land measuring 5.75 acres, fully detailed in para no.3 of the complaint, which has been taken by him from the Gram Panchayat. However, the said land has been given by complainant no.2 to complainant no.1 for cultivation on distribution of agricultural produce in equal share. On 4.12.2010, on the assurance of Op no.1 regarding quality and originality of seed, the complainant had purchased 7 bags of PBW-343 wheat seed from Op no.1 vide bill dt.4.12.2010 for total sum of Rs.4620/- . Op no.2 is the manufacturer of said seed. The complainant sown the wheat seeds in said 5.75 acres of land as per the direction of Op no.1, but the crop was not grown properly and its germination was very less due to lower quality seed. The complainant approached Ops, but they did not pay any heed . Hence, this complaint for compensation alongwith damages for harassment, humiliation and litigation expenses etc.
2. Opposite parties by filing their joint reply contested the case, wherein they have admitted the sale of wheat seed to the complainant. It is further pleaded that 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. Non germination of seed only happens when the farmer fails to irrigate his field after 21 days of sowing of seed, which is commonly known as Critical Route Initiation Stage. It is further pleaded that the seed sold by respondent no.1 was a certified seed duly certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Authority. Moreover, the proper growth of crop depends upon the proper ploughing of field, supply of fertilizers, spraying of pesticides, weed control, proper irrigation and climatic conditions also. Other averments have also been denied.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainants have placed on record various documents i.e. Ex.CW1-their own supporting affidavits; Ex.C1-cash memo; Ex.C2-Parchi Abiana; Ex.C3-receipt; Ex.C4-copy of inspection report; whereas the respondents have tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh.Sunil Kumar, Joint Manager, Ex.R2-certificate issued by Haryana Seed Certification Agency.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for complainant argued that the seed supplied by the opposite parties was of poor quality and it was not germinated 100%. In this regard, he referred the matter to Agriculture department, Sirsa and SDO, Agriculture, Sirsa visited the fields of complainant. The SDO, Agriculture in his report Ex.C4 has admitted that about 30% germination was less in 5 acres land of complainant. The reason of less germination could not be ascertained. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the citation titled as National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Vs. PV Krishna Reddy, I(2009) CPJ 99 (NC).
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties argued that there was no fault in seeds supplied by them. The seed was of very high quality and it must have not germinated due to some fault of complainant. Moreover, he argued that the inspecting team did not inform the opposite parties about the time or date of inspection and the team did not join them. No khasra girdawari or any other revenue paper showing the condition of crops have been placed on record.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that there is nothing on record to prove that the seed sold to the complainant was defective. The case of the complainants depends upon report Ex.C4 of 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 complainants was defective. There is no clarification in the report as to why the inspecting team has not taken the samples of this lot, which was mandatory. Further, no khasra girdawari has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that which crop was sown in which killas. From report Ex.C4, the identity of the land cannot be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. Thus, it cannot be said that the complainant had really suffered any loss due to defective seed. We have also gone through the citation placed on record by ld. counsel for complainant, but the same has no bearing on the merits of the present case.
8. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
