BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 31 of 2017
Date of Institution : 13.02.2017
Date of Decision : 29.11.2017
Sukhdev Singh son of Sh. Vir Singh resident of Village Buppa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd (A state Govt. Undertaking) branch office Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
- Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. (A state Govt. Undertaking) registered office & Head office, Bays No.3-6, Sector-2, Panchkula, through its M.D/Authorized person.
- Shakti vardhak Hybrid Seed Private Ltd., office No.97/98 New Rishi Nagar Hisar.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.S. Bhangu, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. P.K. Mehta, Advocate for the opposite parties no.1&2.
Sh. H.R. Singla, Advocate for the opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and complainant used to take land on lease(Theka) basis and cultivate the same. The complainant has taken 20 acres of land from Parvinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh and Amarjeet Kaur wife of Sukhdev Singh as per jamabandi 2011-12 comprised in khewat no.481 khatuni no.568 sq. no.37 killa
no.4,5,6,7 sq. no.38 killa no.1,2,3/1,9,10 situated at village Buppa Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa. On 25.03.2016 the complainant visited the office of op no.1 and asked him to give seeds of Cotton/Narma crop for above said 20 acres land and purchased 25 packets of SV-385 for the amount of Rs.9500/- and 16 packets of K64 seed for the amount of Rs.9600/- i.e. for total amount of Rs.19,100/- and in this regard op no.1 issued a bill no. 297551 to the complainant. At the time of purchase of that seeds op no.1 had assured complainant that if there will be any problem and any loss to the complainant, then he and other ops will pay the compensation for the loss of the complainant. The complainant believed upon the op no.1 and on every type of assurance of the op no.1, he purchased the said seeds. After purchasing the said seed the complainant put the same in above said 20 acre land as per directions of the op no.1 and also followed every directions and guidance of the ops but the crop of the complainant did not gain height as well as did not give any fruit as the 75 to 80% crop of the complainant has been destroyed. Then the complainant came to know that op no.1 had given him duplicate seeds. The complainant immediately met with the op no.1 and told him about his loss but the op no.1 did not hear the complainant and started to threat the complainant that he cannot do anything. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint to the Agricultural Director, Sirsa for the inspection of the fields and S.D.O Agricultural Sirsa inspected the spot and given his report dated 21.11.2016, in which the SDO Agriculture has reported that the crop of the complainant has been damaged/destroyed due to the above said duplicate seeds. It is further submitted that due to duplicate seeds of the ops, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.14,00,000/- due to loss of 80% of his crop. Besides it, the complainant also spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for sowing of crop. The complainant also suffered mental pain, agony, disappointment, harassment due to act and deficiency in service of the ops. Hence, this complaint. 2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding cause of action, maintainability, concealment and suppression of true and material facts and that the complainant has not produced any laboratory test regarding the duplicacy of the alleged seed in question. On merits, while admitting that the complainant has purchased seed in question from the answering ops, the remaining contents of the complaint are denied. It is submitted that there is no proof that the complainant has sown the cotton seed purchased from the answering ops in his fields. It is also wrong that the answering ops have given any assurance to the complainant as alleged. It is further submitted that it is also relevant to mention here that the other farmers of the area have purchased the cotton seed of the same lot from the answering op and they have sown the same in their fields but no complaint has been received by the answering ops from any of the farmers except the present complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant may have sown some another seeds of another company by mixing the same with the seed sold by the answering ops. The seed in question was purchased by the answering ops from the op no.3 which is certified by the Seed Testing Laboratory Karnal. It is also further submitted that it was agreed by op no.3 with the answering op that it will be responsible in case of any claim regarding quality of the seed. In this way, the answering ops are not at fault in any manner as they have sold the same in a sealed packing which were received from the op no.3 without any alteration or modification in it. The complainant has not suffered any loss due to any act of the answering ops. it is also incorrect that the answering ops have sold duplicate seed to the complainant. The complainant never visited the answering ops. It is further submitted that no intimation or notice has been given to the answering ops. Lastly, it is submitted that Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula has issued instructions dated 3.1.2002 and also on 14.09.2004 vide which it has been clearly mentioned that if there is any complaint from any farmer then a committee should be constituted of two officers of agriculture department and one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientists of the KGK/KVK, HAU and then the report will be submitted accordingly, but in the present case no intimation has been given to the answering ops, hence the alleged report is not legal and valid and the same is not binding. With these averments, dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Op no.3 also filed separate written statement in which it is submitted that the inspection report which is without mentioning any date and time, if any prepared by the officials of the Agriculture Department, is not a scientific, technical and Expert report. It cannot be used against the ops because the complainant failed to make any disclosure about the inspection report that in which killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land the inspection was done. Thus, the report of the official/officer of the Agriculture Department if any even do not pinpoint the identity of the land. Hence, the report is manipulated one and unbelievable. It is also relevant to mention here that the seeds in question is a Cotton seeds and about its character & identification, only Breeder can tell and explain. The answering op is a reputed company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of seeds since long and has got various awards from renowned personalities and institutions of the country and the present complaint is nothing, but attempt to extract money and to put the answering op into unnecessary harassment. All the products and all the lots of seeds manufactured by the answering opposite party are got tested from State seed testing Laboratory, Karnal, A Government Agency established in this respect in the State of Haryana. It is further submitted that it is the duty of the farmer to sow the proper quantity of seed. Yield of crop depends on suitability of land, method of sowing seeds, water and climate and farmer should personally assess suitability of land and water through proper testing. It is further submitted that the seeds sold to the complainant by the op no.1 was of high quality and high standard and same was sold in the sealed and packed condition, as supplied and marketed by the op no.3. There was no defect in the seed sold to the complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
4. The parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has produced Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/A1 seeds bills; Ex.CW1/B copy of aadhar card of Sukhdev Singh, Ex.CW1/C copy of letter dated 19.12.2016, Ex CW1/C1 copy of inspection report, Ex.CW1/D copy of khasra girdawari, Ex.CW1/E copy of jamabandi for year 2011-12, his affidavit Ex.CW1/F, Ex.CW1/H affidavit of Bachitar Singh and Ex.CW1/G affidavit of Parvinder son of Shri Sukhdev Singh. On the other hand OPs tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh. Ved Parkash, Ex.R2 and Ex.R6 photocopy of letter dated 03.01.2002, Ex.R3 affidavit of Sh. N.K. Dahiya, Manager, H.S.D.C, Ex.R4 copy of letter dated 03.03.2016, Ex.R5 copy of report dated 16.02.2016, Ex.R7 copy of letter dated 14.09.2004, Ex.R8 copy of list of farmers and Ex.R9 to Ex.R15 copies of reports about list of farmers.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his case has placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/F wherein he has reiterated all the facts mentioned in his complaint. He has also furnished affidavit of Bachitar Singh as Ex.CW1/H and affidavit of Parvinder as Ex.CW1/G who have deposed as per the version of the complainant. The complainant has also placed on file copy of inspection report Ex.CW1/C of Agriculture department. The perusal of the said inspection report reveals that same does not pin point any defect towards the seed in question. The Officers of the agriculture department have mentioned in the report that there were less tindas on the plants but they have not given the reason for less tindas. The complainant in his complaint has stated that he had sown cotton seed in 20 acres of the land but he has placed on file khasra girdawari of less than 12 acres of land. It is also admitted fact on record that complainant never made any efforts to get seed tested from any approved laboratory in order to get the expert’s opinion that whether the seed so allegedly purchased by him was in fact of sub standard quality and moreover he has not led any other evidence from which it could be presumed that seed purchased by the complainant was of sub standard quality. Rather, the ops have relied upon the report of Seed Testing Laboratory as Ex.R5 according to which the purity of the seed in question is 100%. Further more, the perusal of this inspection report reveals that even inspecting team has not mentioned the killa numbers and square numbers of the land which was inspected by them. Moreover, the inspecting team did not serve any notice of their inspection to other party prior to their inspection which is mandatory requirement of law. The report further reveals that the sample of the seed was not sent for testing. Further more, it is mentioned in the inspection report that there was effect of insects on the crop and there is no evidence to show that complainant took preventive steps to protect crop from insects. In this regard reliance can be placed on the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Diwan Chand & anr. III (2016) CPJ 373 (NC).
7. Moreover, we find force from the judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission reported as 2017 (2) CLT 247 titled as Kuber Agro Corporation & others vs. Gurmeet Singh & others, 2016 (4) CLT 507 titled as Prerna Vs. Seed Works India Pvt. Ltd. & anr., I (2015) CPJ 530 (NC) titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop and III (2011) CPJ 433(NC) titled as Gujarat State Co-op. MKTG. Federation Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyambhai Fulabhai Patel and also from judgment of the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula reported as 2007(2) CLT 683 titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s. Arora Trading company and others relied upon by learned counsel for ops during the course of arguments. The authority of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana cited by learned counsel for the complainant in case titled as Balwant Singh vs. Indian Farmers & anr. FA No. 1132 of 2015 decided on 30.3.2017 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the present case the Agriculture Officers have mentioned in their report that there was effect of flies/ insects on the crop.
8. In view of the above, it appears from the evidence of complainant that complainant has failed to prove his case and there does not appear to be any deficiency in service on the part of ops. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but 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. Member President, Dated:29.11.2017. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
