BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.04 of 2013
Date of Institution : 02.01.2013
Date of Decision : 06.10.2016.
- Alwinder Singh son of Shri Datar Singh son of Shri Sunder Singh.
- Gurpal Singh son of Shri Datar Singh son of Shri Sunder Singh
Residents of village Neza Della Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
1. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Service Centre at 4th Kilometer Stone, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa through its Authorized person/ Manager (Authorized Dealer).
2. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, State of Haryana Registered and Head Office at Bays 3-6, Sector-2, Panchkula 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.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL….MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.S. Wadhwa, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.P.K.Mehta, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainants are having joint agricultural land measuring 39 kanal 4 marlas situated in village Neza Della Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The op no.1 after asking the kind, nature and irrigation sources as well as past result of the agricultural land from the complainants supplied them the seeds quality as 563 Gawar seed i.e. 20 Kgs. seeds to the complainant Alwinder vide bill/ cash memo No.375958 dated 24.5.2012 and also 20 Kgs. gawar seeds to the complainant Gurpal Singh vide bill No.375959 dated 24.5.2012. The seed in question is manufactured by op no.2 and op no.1 fully assured about the originality of the seeds. Thereafter, the complainants sowed the gawar seed in six acres of land as mentioned in para no.7 of the complaint and they did hard labour over the management and supervision of the land and were expecting a very good yield from the crop. However, the complainant suffered mental shock when they noticed that there was a less growing of flowers/faliya over the plant of gawar and they noticed about 80% less production of the crop and on detecting said loss, they approached to the Agricultural Officer at Sirsa for the spot inspection in their field to access the loss. Accordingly, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer alongwith block Agricultural Officer, Khairekan inspected the field of the complainant in presence of complainant, officials of op no.1 as well as other respectable of the village and reported that less production is only due to the result of spurious/ inferior quality of the seeds. The officials of op no.1 who were present at the spot also assured to pay compensation of loss to the complaints. Due to the less production, the complainants have undergone the loss of crop to the extent of about 50-60% and have suffered loss of Rs.7,20,000/- besides other expenses of Rs.76,000/- for purchasing seeds and harvesting etc. The complainants are also entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment etc. The complainants have been taking the rounds to the ops time and again for payment of compensation, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the case by filing written statement pleading therein that germination of gawar seed like other crop apart from the seed quality depends upon various factors like climate condition, type of soil, water and irrigation facility and use of fertilizers etc. The op-corporation markets the seed which are duly certified by the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency from Seed Testing Lab which is State Govt. Agency. Apart from the State Government, the quality is strictly maintained by the corporation also. The op-corporation has printed the instructions which are given after laboratory test. The bare reading of the complaint reveals that the complainants have not followed the agronomical instructions. If the seed lot meets the standard fixed by the Central Seed Certificate Board (Govt. of India) then it is certified by HSSCA and then the same is sold by ops to the farmers. The documents produced by the complainant do not establish that the seeds purchased by him from ops was actually sowed in the fields. Several other farmers (122 nos.) of the area had purchased same lot seeds from the ops and they sowed the same in their respective fields but there is no such complaint from them. The complainant never visited the office of ops. No intimation or notice has been given to the ops for inspection and ops never visited the spot in question, therefore, report is not binding upon the ops. Remaining averments of the complaint have also been denied.
3. The complainants have tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Alwinder Singh Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to R8.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. The main dispute in this complaint is that gawar seed sold by the opposite parties was defective and due to that seed, total crop of complainants has been affected and they suffered losses. The complainants case depends upon the report Ex.C5 of the Agriculture department. We carefully have gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. It would not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by them. From report Ex.C5 the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. In an authority of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission relied upon by learned counsel for opposite parties in case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 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.
6. Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R2, issued to all the Deputy Directors in the State in which it is directed by the Director Agriculture that inspection team should be consisting of total four members, two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. In this report, it is mentioned that inspection was conducted by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Agriculture Development Officer, Khairekan and the report is bearing signatures of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, SIRSA only. This report is not conclusive and the same is defective one. Although the complainants have claimed that officials of op no.1 were present at the time of inspection of their fields but there is nothing on record to prove that notice was issued to Ops for spot inspection. There is also no mention in the report Ex.C5 that representatives of the ops were present in the fields of complainant at the time of inspection and as such report cannot be said to be valid one. No sample of seed was sent to the Lab. for analysis whereas opposite parties have placed on file copy of certificate issued by Haryana State Seed Certificate Agency Ex.R5 to prove that sample of the above said seed was tested in the Laboratory and has been found 98% pure. Report obtained by complainant without notice to ops cannot be relied upon in light of certificate of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the observations of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop, I (2015) CPJ 530 (NC) relied upon by learned counsel for ops. Moreover, report of Agriculture Department Ex.C5 shows that the crop was affected with disease named BLINT.
7. So, complainant has failed to prove his case from all angles. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 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. President,
Dated: 06.10.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
