3. Punjab National Bank (Earlier it was known as Oriental Bank of Commerce- now merged in PNB) Branch at Ellenabad, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
4. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Regional Office at Cabin No. 7, 3rd Floor, Agro Mall, Sector-20, Panchkula, Haryana- 134117 through Managing Director/ Authorized Person Email- ..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
BEFORE: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR……….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………….. MEMBER
Present: Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Sh. Sahil Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist having agricultural land comprised in Sq. No. 309 Killa No. 8(7-11) 13(8-0) 18(8-0), Khewat/ Khatuni No. 5/9 situated in village Talwara Khurd, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa. That complainant purchased cotton seeds of six bags weighing 475 grams each of US-81 (Batch no. 191860080) and six bags of 475 grams each of Vikhyat (KDCHH 641 BG 11- product of op no.2) bearing batch no. 202323 for total amount of Rs.8760/- from op no.1 vide bill/ invoice no. 3221 dated 11.05.2020 for his agriculture land after every type of assurance given by op no.1 about best quality of the Vikhayat seed. That complainant sown above said cotton seeds in his land measuring 18 Kanals but the fruits of cotton plants were not as per expectation and was zero. It is further averred that complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director, Sira on 01.09.2020 and also moved copy of the same to the CM Window whereupon inspection of the cotton crop in the field of complainant was conducted by the team of Agriculture department and they found that height and numbers of the plants is fine but some flower and fruits of the cotton crop were dry and further verified that size of cotton fruits was also smaller than normal size and the leafs of the cotton crop were also dry. It is further averred that team finally reached on conclusion that approximately damages to the cotton crop is to the extent of 40% to 45% and they also approached op no.1 for collecting the stock of Vikhyat cotton seeds but same was found Nil. That complainant has suffered loss of Rs.2,07,900/- in his 2.25 acres land and ops no.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the loss of cotton crop suffered by complainant alongwith interest from 15.10.2020 till the date of realization. It is further averred that complainant had also obtained loan under KCC scheme vide loan account no. 16895115003192 from op no.3 bank. The op no.3 bank got insured his cotton crop of 2020 with op no.4 and deducted insurance premium of Rs.3764/- on 30.07.2020 and as such ops no.3 and 4 are also liable to bear the loss suffered by complainant jointly and severally. That ops by their act and conduct have indulged themselves in unfair trade practice and have also committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written version raising 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, the officers of Agriculture department have not mentioned the Killa numbers and Khasra numbers of the land. They have also not given any finding that alleged loss has been suffered by complainant due to quality of seed. From the report, it is no where clarified that inspection was done on the land in which complainant used the seed. So, the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and thus the said spot inspection report appears to be manipulated one. It is further submitted that inspection report is not in accordance to the letter dated 03.01.2002 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. That variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moister content at the sowing time and soil physical condition. These principles are applicable to the case in hand and complainant has not stated anything about these things. It was necessary on the part of complainant to adopt all the agricultural operations given on the leaflet/ broacher of the seeds, which was provided inside the seed packet to the farmer. The complainant himself is responsible for adopting wrong cultivation practice, which was not recommended by the ops. It is further submitted that complaint is bad for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (C) of the Act as complainant has not furnished the report of any expert/ lab test report about the quality of the seeds. Other preliminary objections regarding cause of action, suppression of true and material facts, estoppal and jurisdiction are also taken. On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated. It is also submitted that complainant was satisfied with the packing and seal of the seeds packets at the time of purchase of the same. The op no.2 manufacturers high quality cotton seeds. The answering ops have no notice and knowledge of the spot inspection by the officers of the Agriculture department as they were never called to join the spot inspection. However, from the inspection report dated 21.09.2020 it appears that less quantity of cotton seed was sowed by complainant in his land and thereafter in order to fill the gaps he sowed some other type of cotton seed/ other brand cotton seed in his land. In this manner, the complainant adulterated his field by sowing two different type of varieties of the cotton seeds which is not at all recommended by the manufacturer. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. Op no.3 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.3 got insured the cotton crop under the scheme Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana for the year 2020 with op no.4 as op no.3 deducted premium of Rs.3764.07 out of KCC account of complainant on 30.07.2020 and as such op no.3 bank is not liable to bear the loss suffered by complainant and if this Commission comes to the conclusion that complainant is entitled to any such amount as compensation then ops no.1, 2 jointly and severally and op no.3 may be held liable for the same being the insurer of the cotton crop in question. Remaining contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
5. On being impleaded as op no.4, op no.4 appeared and filed written version submitting therein that as there was shortfall in the actual yield of insured cotton crop in the village Talwara Khurd 1 (120) Block Ellenabad, District Sirsa during Kharif 2020 season, therefore, area approach claim of Rs.11,593.97 is already paid on 22.03.2021 to the complainant farmer through UTR No. AXISCN0073404848. Thus, the eligible claims for the above mentioned season is already paid to the farmer and no other claim is payable as per the PMFBY scheme and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and photographs Ex.C10 to Ex.C13.
7. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Gurnam Singh proprietor of op no.1 as Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. Surinder Kumar, Area Sales Manager of op no.2 as Ex.R2 and letter dated 03.01.2002 Ex.R3. OP no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate on behalf of Branch Manager as Ex. RW3/A and documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/3. Op no.4 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Geddam Gandhi Raju, Regional Manager as RW4/A and documents Ex.R4/1 to Ex.R4/11.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
9. Admittedly on 11.05.2020 the complainant had purchased six bags of cotton seeds of US-81 and six bags of cotton seeds of Vikhyat company question from op no.1 for an amount of Rs.8760/- which fact is also evident from bill Ex.C2 and said Vikhyat seed is manufactured by op no.2 in which complainant has alleged defect. As per letter dated 03.01.2002 of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula written to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the Haryana State, copy of which is placed on file by ops no.1 and 2 as Ex.R3, the fields of farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/ KVK, HAU. However, from the inspection report placed on file by complainant as Ex.C8, it is evident that no notice of the inspection was ever given to the ops no.1 and 2 and therefore, inspection was conducted in absence of the ops no.1 and 2 and as such the report is in contravention of above said letter dated 03.01.2002. Moreover, according to complainant himself and as per report Ex.C8 itself the complainant used mixed quality of seeds in his 2.25 acres of agricultural land. Further more, good germination and good yield depends upon so many factors like quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer and pesticides and weather conditions and as such it cannot be said at all that the reason of loss of crop was only due to defective seed supplied by the op no.1. Even in the report which itself is defective, it is no where mentioned that reason of loss of crop was only due to supply of defective seeds by the op no.1. The complainant has also not stated that what type of pesticides and fertilizer was used by him and as such complainant has failed to prove on record that op no.1 has supplied misbranded and substandard quality of the seeds to him. As such complainant is not entitled to any compensation from ops no.1 and 2.
10. It has also come on record that above said cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 of complainant was also got insured by op no.3 with op no.4 as per Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna. From the village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif, 2020 supplied by Agriculture department, Sirsa to the op no.4 alongwith letter Ex.R4/8, it is evident that the average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in village Talwara Khurd was 485.62 Kgs. per hectare whereas as per crop cutting experiments conducted by agriculture department also placed on file by op no.4, the threshold yield of block Ellenabad was 574.02 kgs. per hectare. So as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, as average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 remained below than threshold yield of block Ellanabad, therefore, complainant was entitled to receive amount of Rs.11,593/- from op no.4 insurance company for the loss of his cotton crop in his 2.25 acres of land. The op no.4 has also pleaded that area approach claim of Rs.11,593.97 has already been paid to the complainant on 22.03.2021 and in this regard op no.4 has also placed on file document Ex.R4/10 which proves the fact that amount of Rs.11,593.97 has already been paid to the complainant on 22.03.2021. As such complainant has already been compensated by op no.4 for the loss of his insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 as per operational guidelines of PMFBY and as such complainant is not entitled to any other amount from ops no.3 and 4 also. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed.
11. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 21.03.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
