BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.28 of 2014
Date of Institution : 13.2.2014
Date of Decision : 22.9.2016.
Suman aged about 43 years son of Shri Lehri Singh, resident of village Kheowali, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Regional Manager, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Hisar Road, Sirsa.
2. Director, Head Office, Haryana Seed Development Corporation Limited, Bay No.3-6, Sector 2, Panchkula.
...…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.R. Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.P.K.Mehta, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant purchased four packets of Moong seed MH 421/B/S (Breeder seeds) of 10 Kg. each on 17.6.2013 from opposite party no.1. The said seed was purchased by the complainant vide Sr. No.416 dated 16.8.2013 for Rs.3110.50/- for two acres on the assurance of op no.1. As per the instructions of the ops, the complainant sowed said seed in his two acres of land after preparation of land and put the fertilizer and spray was sprinkled. Besides that, the complainant also spent inspection fee of Rs.110/- per acre and some other expenses. The ops assured the complainant that he will get 8-10 quintal crop per acre, however, when the crop was germinated, the phalli was empty without any moong/crop. The complainant moved an application to the office of op no.1 on 16.9.2013 for inspection of his fields. Thereafter, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali and Block Agriculture Officer, Odhan jointly inspected the fields of the complainant on 25.9.2013 and given report dated 8.10.2013, according to which the complainant has suffered loss of his crop up to 90%. Thereafter, the complainant approached the ops and requested to pay compensation for the damage to his crop but to no effect and ops postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant has suffered a total loss of Rs.1,21,310.50/- i.e. Rs.1,08,000/- for loss of crop and labour charges and Rs.3310.50/- for purchasing seed in question and he is entitled to the above said amount from the opposite parties alongwith interest. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops on 28.10.2013 but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the case by filing written statement pleading therein that germination of Moong 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 purchased the seed in question from Ch. Charan Singh, Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar on 26.6.2013 and the seed was duly certified by the said University vide testing report dated 2.2.2013. The seeds are subjected to the quality and analysis and test. As per the application given by the complainant, his fields was inspected by the officials of ops on 16.9.2013 and they found that crop germination was good but there was fungal disease and this factum was told to the complainant and the complainant also agreed for the same and put signature on the inspection report and accepted the same. The complainant never visited their office after 16.9.2013. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, copy of bill dated 16.8.2013 Ex.P1, copy of jamabandi Ex.P2, copy of application dated 13.9.2013 Ex.P3, copy of application dated 16.9.2013 Ex.P4, copy of letter dated 8.10.2013 Ex.P5, copy of inspection report Ex.P6 and also documents Ex.P7 to Ex.P13. On the other hand, opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1, copy of letter dated 4.10.2014 Ex.R2, copy of lab test report of CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar dated 2.2.2013 Ex.R3, copy of bill Ex.R4, copy of application dated 16.9.2013 and report thereon Ex.R5, copy of inspection report Ex.R6, copy of letter dated 12.11.2013 Ex.R7.
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 Moong seed sold by the opposite parties was defective 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. Although, it is mentioned in the said report that there is possibility of loss to the extent of 90% crop but it is not mentioned in the report that said loss is due to defective seed. No sample of seed was sent to the Lab. for analysis. It would also 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.C6 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 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, issued to all the Deputy Director in the State in which it is directed by the Director Agriculture, 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, Dabwali and Block Agriculture Officer, Odhan and the report is bearing signatures of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali only. This report is not conclusive and the same is defective one. Even, no notice was issued to Ops for spot verification. It is also pertinent to mention here that on the application moved to op no.1 on 16.9.2013 by the complainant, his field was got inspected by op no.1 and it was found that there was fungal disease to the crop. Further, the seed in question was tested in the Laboratory of Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and report in this regard has been placed on file by the ops as Ex.R3. The Hon’ble National Commission 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 has held that “ Report of Agriculture Department does not mention about inferior quality of seeds. Report obtained by complainant without notice to op cannot be relied upon in light of certificate of Haryana State Seeds Certification Agency and deficiency not proved.”
7. So, complainant has 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: 22.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
