Area Manager, IFFCO Regional Office, Nai Anaj Mandi, Krishak Bharti Sewa Kender, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI VINOD JAIN…………………PRESIDENT
SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Complainant Om Parkash, on 8.6.2012, purchased 10 packets of Guar 563 seeds from IFFCO Kisan Sewa Kender i.e. from the opposite parties, vide cash invoice no.33 of that date (Ex.C9), for his 20 acres of agriculture land and sowed it. After about one month, he noticed that it was mixed crop of varied heights, might be because of mixture of different types of Guar seeds. He moved an application to Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Sirsa, whereupon Agriculture Development Officer, Dadu; Divisional Agriculture Officer, Odhan and Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali; jointly visited his fields and gave their report (Ex.C12), regarding their visit of 20 acres agricultural land with Guar crop, finding that 20% plants were straight plants (having no side branches) and 10% plants having meager fruiting, but rest of the crop was average of about 5 feet in height. It is pleaded in this complaint that as per this report, he has suffered 30% crop loss because of mixed seed, sold to him. It is further pleaded that average guar yield, remains about 30 quintals per acre and so, 30% thereof would be of Rs.10,80,000/-. Besides it, he is also entitled for incidental expenses like labour charges, fertilizer, electricity etc. and harassment etc., therefore, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.12,80,000/-, with upto date interest.
2. Opposite parties, in their joint reply, have contested the case of the complainant, by pleadeding that opposite party no.1 had sold Guar seed 563 to the complainant, in the same sealed condition, in which, it was received by it from the manufacturer, which was of high and standard quality. That the report of the Agriculture Department, is in violation of letter of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dated 3.1.2002, addressed to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana. That it was also without notice to the opposite parties. It is also further pleaded that the complainant has not mentioned specific killa numbers or sq. numbers of his land, where allegedly, he had sown the guar seed. That there is also no laboratory test report or expert evidence etc. to prove his case that crop loss, if any may be due to variety of reasons, other than quality of the seeds, sold to him.
3. Various preliminary objections are also taken i.e. against the maintainability of the complaint in the present form; want of cause of action of the complainant to file this complaint; estoppel against him; mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties, non-mentioning of killa no. or khasra nos. of the land, where allegedly guar seeds were sown and that crop loss, if any, may be due to variety of reasons, other than, quality of the seeds.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2 to Ex.C7-copies of khasra girdawaris; Ex.C8-copy of his legal notice dated 8.10.2012; Ex.C13 and Ex.C14-postal receipts of the legal notice; Ex.C15 and Ex.C16 are copies of its acknowledgements; Ex.C17 and Ex.C18-copies of Guar seed literature; Ex.C19-copy of Form J dated 6.12.2012; Ex.C20-report of Naib Tehsildar, regarding average Guar yield of 8 to 10 quintal per acre and Ex.21-report of Secretary, Market Committee, regarding crop sale of good quality of Guar of Rs.14550/- qtl. in 2012.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Ex.R1-supporting affidavit of Sh.Rishipal, its State Marketing Manager; Ex.R2 and Ex.R3-copies of guar STL report; Ex.R4-copy of letter of Director Agriculture dated 3.1.2002, written to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture department, regarding field inspections on the complaints of the farmers, regarding poor quality of the seeds; Ex.R5 and Ex.R6-copies of test reports; Ex.R7 to Ex.R26-copies of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency Certificate; Ex.R27-copy of Seeds Amendments Rules, 1974, regarding manner of action to be taken by the Seed Inspector, when a farmers’ complaint is received, regarding failure of the crop due to defective quality of seeds; Ex.R28 and Ex.R29-copies of sale invoice, for selling guar seeds by Indian Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Hisar to IFFCO Kisan Sewa Kender, Sirsa and Ex.R30-copy of District wise Distribution of Guar Seed to IFFCO farmer Service Center for Kharif 2012.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard Sh.R.Shoeran, learned counsel for the complainant and Sh. JBL Garg, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
7. Various preliminary objections taken by the opposite parties, in their joint reply, are not pressed before us during arguments. We also do not find any merit in any preliminary objection. There is no defect in the form of the complaint, nor any defect is pointed out. Since, as would be discussed and found, crop loss to the complainant, was due to mixed quality of Guar seeds, so, he has cause of action to file this complaint. There is nothing against the complainant and there is also nothing to show as to how he has not come to this Forum with clean hands. There is also nothing to show as to which necessary party is not impleaded and which party impleaded is not necessary. Therefore, all the preliminary objections are hereby decided against the opposite parties and in favour of the complainant.
8. At the very outset, it is important to note that case of the complainant, is regarding crop loss due to mixture of Guar seeds. It gets full support and corroboration from Agriculture Experts report Ex.C12, besides supporting affidavit of the complainant. Bare perusal of Agriculture Experts Report Ex.C12,, shows that they had jointly visited 20 acres of guar crop of the complainant, finding 20% straight plants of single stem (without side branches) and that 10% plants having less fruiting, whereas remaining crop was average of about 5 feet in height.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, has assailed aforesaid agriculture experts report on the ground that it is in violation of instructions of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula, given to all the Deputy Directors Agriculture in the State of Haryana dated 3.1.2002 (Ex.R4) and also that their visit was without any notice and in the back of the opposite parties. We have considered the contention, but find no much substance in it. Said instructions are regarding inspection of the fields of the farmers, when the complaint is regarding sale of poor quality of seeds. But, the case in hand, is not regarding poor quality of seeds, but is regarding mixture of different varieties of guar seeds. Very rightly, in case of complaint, regarding poor quality of seed, representative of the manufacturing company of the seed, as well as, concerned scientist, to report regarding the quality of the seed, is must. But, when the complaint is not regarding quality of the seed, but is regarding mixture of guar seeds, then the representatives of the manufacturing company or concerned scientist is not must. Here, in the case in hand, the said three Agriculture officers, who had visited the field of the complainant, are experts in the field of agriculture. They are respectable and independent officials. They have no axe of their own to grind. Therefore, to our mind, said experts report Ex.C12, is an important document.
10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has, however, cited Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar & Anr. IV(2013) CPJ 186 and Order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014 dated 26.11.2014 titled Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op Ltd. through its Authorized Representative IFFCO Sadan, C-1, Distt. Centre, Saket Place, New Delhi Vs. Ram Swaroop; whereas, learned counsel for the complainant has cited Kalagonda Dhulgonda Patil Vs. Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation & Ors.. We have gone through all these citations and find that said citations of opposite parties, are of no help to them, as these pertain to the complaints of the farmers, regarding poor quality of seeds. As above discussed and found, when there is a complaint, regarding poor quality of seed, then the inspection party should comprise of representative of the manufacturing company of the seeds, as well as, concerned scientist. The said ruling cited by the complainant, is helpful to him, as it is held therein that report of Technical Officers cannot be ignored, merely because a sample of the seeds manufactured and distributed by respondents, was not subjected to full scale laboratory test, to determine the extent of adulteration”. Here, in the case in hand, it is proved that guar crop of the complainant was due to mixture of guar seeds.
11. Moreover, bare perusal of seeds sale Invoice dated 8.6.2011 (Ex.C9), shows that batch number, tag number and lot number of the 10 packets of the guar seed sold, are not mentioned. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, to our mind, it is not a bonafide omission. When there is specific column for mentioning batch no., tag no. or lot no. of the seeds sold, then the same must be filled. In case of not mentioning these details, then possibility of selling mixture of guar seeds, in those 10 packets, cannot be ruled out. Had these particulars been mentioned in the receipt, then perhaps, the opposite parties also could have been in a position to say that seeds sold to the complainant were in the same packed condition, in which the same were received from the manufacturing company. Therefore, because of this link evidence, all those certificates issued by the said Seed Certification Agency on record, are of no avail to the opposite parties. Selling the seeds, without mentioning batch no., lot no. or tag no. etc., itself is gross deficiency of service, as well as, unfair trade practice on part of opposite party no.1.
12. Now, learned counsel for the opposite parties, contends that identity of the land, in which allegedly, guar seeds were sown, is not established. In this regard, it is contended that the complainant has not mentioned killa no. or khasra nos. of the land. That copies of jamabandis and khasra girdawaris placed on record, also do not record the complainant as owner in possession. We have considered the contention, but in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we find ourselves unable to agree with the contention. Mentioning killa no. or khasra no. in the complaint, are not absolute necessary. Omission thereof cannot be said as fatal, especially when the complainant has placed on record copies of jamabandis and khasra girdawaris. Moreover, in the case in hand, as above noted, agriculture experts in their report Ex.C12, have also specifically mentioned that they had visited Guar crop of the complainant in 20 acres of land.
13. Aforesaid jamabandis and khasra girdawaris, of-course, do not record the complainant as owner in cultivating possession, but names of his wife Smt.Durgawati and of daughter in law viz. Meenakshi, are mentioned as owners in cultivating possession. It is a matter of common knowledge that ladies do not themselves cultivate their land, but get it cultivated through their male persons of the family.
14. However, copies of jamabandis and khasra girdawaris from Ex.C3 to Ex.C7, are not for 20 acres of agricultural land, but are only of 18-1/2 acres of agricultural land. It seems that the complainant, as well as, the agricultural experts, have mentioned 20 acres of agricultural land, as per their own estimation and not in meticulous way. Khasra girdawari shows the guar crop on 18-1/2 acres of land . It proves that guar crop was in 18-1/2 acres of agricultural land, and not in 20 acres of agricultural land.
15. Now, on the point of quantum of crop loss, only reliable evidence, is
said Agriculture Experts report Ex.C12, according to which, 20% plants were of straight height i.e. of single stem, without side branches and only 10% plants were having less fruiting, whereas rest crop was average, of about 5 feet in height. We find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the opposite parties, that even said 20% straight plants of single stem, would bear some fruit and there is also no mention, regarding the extent of less fruiting in said 10% of the crop. Therefore, in the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that net crop loss should be taken to the extent of 7-1/2%.
16. Now, on the point of quantum of loss in terms of money, as per Naib ‘Tehsildar report Ex.C20, average guar yield of guar crop in this area of the State remains 8 to 10 qtls. per acre; say 9 qtls. per acre. Therefore, total yield of guar crop on 18-1/2 acres of agricultural land of the complainant, would be of 166-1/2 qtls. As per Market Committee Report Ex.C21, and as per Form J dated 6.12.2012 Ex.C19, average market price of good quality of guar crop was Rs.14550/-. But, here in the case in hand, guar crop was of average quality and not good or best quality. Therefore, to our mind, rate of guar, of the case in hand, should be assessed @ Rs.13000/- per qtl. Total price of whole guar crop would be thus of Rs.21,64,500/- (13000x 166.5). Since, the complainant suffered 7-1/2% crop loss, therefore, loss in terms of money comes to Rs.1,62,338/-.
17. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,62,338/- to the complainant, for loss of his guar crop, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint dated 1.1.2013, till payment. The complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.550/-.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:10.2.2015. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Om Parkash Vs. IFFCO Kisan Sew Kender
Present: Sh.R.Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Learned counsel for the complainant closed the additional evidence after tendering documents from Ex.C17 to Ex.C21. Leanred counsel for opposite parties also closed their additional evidence.Arguments heard. For order to come up on 10.2.2015.
Dated:30.1.2015.
Member. President,
DCDRF,Sirsa.
Present: Sh.R.Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been allowed with costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:10.2.2015. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
