BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.51 of 2013
Date of Institution : 14.2.2013
Date of Decision : 23.8.2016
Suraj Pal, aged about 57 years, son of Sh.Dhanpat Ram, r/o village Chhatrian, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.Sirsa, tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
- Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., Regd. Office: Bays No.3-6, Sector 2, Panchkula-134112.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA ……………………..PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL….MEMBER.
Present: Sh.B.C.Bhattiwal. Advocate for complainant.
Sh.P.K.Mehta, Advocate for Opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is agriculturist and used to cultivate the land on Theka/hissa in the village. He has obtained 1 acre & 6 kanals land in village Raghuwana , fully detailed in para no.1 of the complaint from Balkaur Singh alias Balbir Singh s/o Sh.Kartar Singh, r/o village Raghuwana on Hissa/Theka/Lease and is cultivating the same since long. On 26.5.2012, the complainant had purchased Gawar seed 563 from Op no.1 vide bill/book no.2506/375766 for Rs.4000/-. The complainant sown the said seeds in his said 1 acre and 6 kanals of land as per the direction of Ops. Thereafter, he found that the seed provided by Ops could not be properly grown up due to inferior and duplicate quality. The complainant approached Ops, but they did not pay any heed. He also moved an application to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa, who got inspected the fields through SDAO, Sirsa and ADO, Baragudha . Said officials inspected the fields of complainant and found that height of the plants were 6/7 feet, plantation of main crop were lying on the ground, 8 to 10% of Gawar plants were standing without any Flower/Fali, size of and plants were fat and width, flowers were tagged and Fali were green and kachi. It seems that the crop was affected due to some mixed and duplicate seed. Thus, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Opposite parties appeared and filed written statement. It is replied that from the book no.2506/375766 dt. 26.5.21012, it is clear that the seed was not purchased by the complainant from the Ops. The Op-corporation markets the seeds which are duly certified by the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency which is a State Govt. Agency. It is further pleaded that when the complainant has not purchased seed from the Op, so there is no question of damaging his crop. The complainant might have sown other seed of other company. It is also replied that no intimation or notice has been given to them by the inspection team of Agriculture Department and no committee was constituted as per the guidelines of Director Agriculture Haryana, Panchkula issued vide letter dt. 3.1.2002. All other averments have also been denied.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1, cash memos Ex.C2, copy of application Ex.C3, letter Ex.C4, inspection report Ex.C5 and receipt of Balbir Singh Ex.C6, whereas the respondents has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, retail invoice Ex.R2, list of sale of gawar seed Ex.R3, letter dt. 3.1.2002 Ex.R4, letters Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 and certificate of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency Ex.R7.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsels for the parties.
5. The plea of opposite parties that the seed was not sold to the complainant Sural Pal has no force because in the documents Ex.C2 and Ex.R2 sale of seed to Darjit Singh Suraj Pal is clearly mentioned. Now, the main dispute in this complaint is that gawar seed sold by the respondents was mixed and sub standard seed and due to that seed, the total crop of the complainant has been affected and he suffered losses. The complainant case depends upon the report Ex.C5 of the Agriculture department. We carefully have gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. No sample of seed was sent to the Lab. for analysis. 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.C5 the identity of the land can not 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 germination and it can be said that the complainant had really suffered any loss due to defective seed.
6. As per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R4, 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 officers of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. In this report, it is mentioned that this report was prepared only by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Agriculture Development Officer, Baragudha and is bearing their signatures. This report is not conclusive and the same is defective one. Even, no notice was issued to Ops for spot verification. Moreover, report of Agriculture Department shows that the crop was affected with disease named (BLINT).
7. So, complainant is failed to prove his case from all angles and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law.
8. 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:23.8.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
