BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.146 of 2013
Date of Institution : 20.8.2013
Date of Decision : 23.8.2016
Gurnaib Singh son of Sh.Zora Singh, r/o village Sukhchain, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Kalanwali, Distt. Sirsa through its Branch Manager (IFFCO).
...…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.S.Gill. Advocate for complainant.
Sh.P.K.Mehta, Advocate for Opposite party.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is agriculturist and having the land , fully detailed in para no.1 of the complaint. On 16.5.2012, the complainant had purchased two packets of Gawar seed HG-563 from Op vide bill no.44010 @ Rs.400/- per Kgs. The complainant sown the said seeds in his four acres of land as per the direction of Op. Thereafter, in the first week of October, 2012, he found that the plants of crops are different i.e. 2/3 varieties and there was no flower/Fali on it due to sub standard of Gawar seed. However, at the time of purchasing the seed, it was assured by Op that the complainant will get gawar upto 8/10 quintals per acre. The complainant approached Op, but he 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, Kurangawali. Said officials inspected the fields of complainant and found that length of the Gawar crops were different and main gawar plants were lying on the ground, 20/30% of Gawar plants were standing without any Flower/Fali, size of Patti and plants were also different, Fali were green and kachi and that the plants of Gawar were of different varieties. Thus, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,60,000/-. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Opposite party appeared, filed written statement and admitted the sale of Gawar seed to the complainant. It is pleaded that the complainant may have sown some another seeds of other company by mixing the same with the seed. The other farmers of the area have purchased the Gawar seed of the same lot from Op and they have sown the same in their fields, but there is no complaint from any of the farmers except the present complaint. The Op markets the seeds which are duly certified by the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency which is a state Govt. Agency and the seed supplied to the complainant was original. 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, copy of letter dt. 3.1.2002 Ex.C2, cash memos Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, application Ex.C5, inspection report Ex.C6 and khasra girdawari C7. Whereas the respondent has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, certificate of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency Ex.R2, letter dt. 3.1.2002 Ex.R3, letters Ex.R4 and Ex.R5, lists of sale of gawar seed Ex.R6, Ex.R7, Ex.R9 and Ex.R11 and letters Ex.R8 and Ex.R10.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsels for the parties.
5. The main dispute in this complaint is that gawar seed sold by the respondent was mixed and sub standard seed and due to that seed, his total crop has been affected and he suffered losses. The complainant case depends upon the report Ex.C6 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.C6 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.R3, 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, Kurangawali 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.
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.
