BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.40 of 2012
Date of Institution : 15.02.2012
Date of Decision : 25.10.2016
Kulwant Singh son of Sh. Jagdish Chander, resident of Ding Mandi, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Khurana Trading Company, Ding Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its proprietor/ partner.
- National Seeds Corporation Limited (NSC) (A Govt. of India undertaking) Beej Bhawan, Pusa Complex, New Delhi- 110012.
- Jagdish Store (Kali Rawan Wala) Tilak Bajar, Hisar, through its Proprietor/ partner.
...…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.K.R.Pilania. Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ajay Allawadhi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 3.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that he had purchased five packets of 4 Kgs. each i.e total 20 Kgs. Gawar Seed HG-365 S.F.C-I batch/lot No.10-20, 109-19-11 at the rate of Rs.200/- per bag i.e. for Rs.1000/0 on 14.6.2011 from opposite party no.1 vide bill No.1937. On 18.6.2011, the complainant as per instructions/advice of the ops, had sowed the above said seed of Gawar in about 3½ acres of land belonging to his father as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint. Before sowing the seed in the fields, the complainant had put 30 Kgs. DAP per acre in the fields as per instructions of the ops and thereafter, he also sprayed pesticide of Safed Makhi and Thrimas two times and also sprayed 30 grams stateprosekiln+ 400 grams blytax but after that he saw that the height of gawar plants gone up to the height of 7 feet and plants are of different size and there were no fruits on the plants and only meager fruits were there on the plants. Thereafter, complainant requested the op no.1 that he had supplied misbranded seed of gawar to him and requested him to inspect the fields of the complainant but op no.1 refused to inspect his fields and stated that he had supplied the seed to him as he received from op no.2. Then complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa for inspection of the crops on 13.10.2011. On 18.10.2011, the crops were inspected by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa alongwith Sh. Krishan Bhabhu, ADO Ding in the presence of Sh. Om Parkash Kanungo, Ding and Sh. Prithvi Singh, Halqa Patwari Ding and Sh. Ram Sarup Lamberdar of village and it was found by the officials of Agriculture Department that the height of the plants were about 7/8 feet and there were 20% mixed plants of other variety and plants were of different qualities. There were meager fruits/ phalli on upper portion of gawar plants which were not matured. It was also reported that the plants of gawar are not of HG-365 seeds and it was also held that complainant shall get 2/3 munds per acre. Thus, the ops have caused loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,97,500/- and besides this, he has spent more than Rs.60,000/- for getting crops and Rs.20,000/- on labour and the complainant is entitled to receive the said amounts from ops besides compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment etc. and also litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared, filed written statement and submitted that answering op was not given any intimation or information about the inspection of field by the officers of Agriculture Department. There is no mention of specific killa numbers wherein the alleged inspection was conducted by the officers of the Agriculture Department and the alleged report does not prove that there was any defect in the seeds. The complainant himself is responsible for adopting wrong cultivation practice, which was not recommended by the ops. The complainant has also not furnished the report of any expert/ lab test report about the quality of seeds. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 contested the complaint by filing separate reply submitting therein that complainant has never made any complaint to the answering op nor made any complaint to its local office/ farm i.e. Director, Central State Farm, Sirsa Road, Hisar or State Farms Corporation of India Limited, Jaipur who is the manufacturer of the said seed and the manufacturer has not been impleaded as a party. As per report of the Rajasthan State Seed and Organic Production Certificate Agency, Jaipur and Seed Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) the seed is 98% pure and minimum germination of seed is 70%. The variation in condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed but may be due to other facts including water quality, long dry spell or over watering and fertilization etc.
4. Op no.3 in its reply has averred that the report prepared by the officer of Agriculture Department is not a scientific, technical and expert report and is highly defective one and cannot be used against the op. It is also relevant to mention here that the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula vide his office letter memo No.52-70/TA (SS) dated PKL, 3.1.2002 addressed to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana, has issued direction that the field of farmers be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/KVK, HAU and report will be submitted to the office of Director, Agriculture immediately after inspection. But in this case, the officers of Agriculture Department have failed to follow the above instruction/ directions and as such the alleged inspection report is no report in the eyes of law. Remaining averments of complaint have also been denied.
5. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, photographs Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, application dated 13.10.2011 Ex.C5, bill Ex.C6, letter dated 2.11.2011 Ex.C7, copy of inspection report Ex.C8, copy of jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 Ex.C9 and photograph Ex.C10. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit Ex.R1, lab test reports Ex.R2 and Ex.R3, affidavit Ex.R4 and affidavit Ex.R5.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. The first and foremost question for consideration in this case arises as to whether the inspection report of the fields conducted by Officers of Agriculture Department is valid or not. 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 that inspection team should be consisting with total four members, two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. However, the inspection of the field of complainant was conducted by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Sh. Krishan Bhambhu, ADO Ding and the report is bearing the signatures of Sub Divisional Agriculture officer, Sirsa only. This report is, therefore, not conclusive and the same is defective one. Even, no notice was issued to Ops for spot verification. In this regard, the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. and anr. vs. Bhup Singh, revision petition No.2144 of 2014 decided on 9th April, 2015 relied upon by learned counsel for ops has held that “at the time of inspection, complainant should have asked the inspecting team to intimate OP as well Scientist for carrying out inspection and as inspection has not been done by the duly constituted Committee, no reliance can be placed on this inspection report and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of petitioner.” So, when the report, on which the entire claim of the complainant is based, is not valid, no compensation can be given to the complainant.
8. So, in such like circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complaint is without any merit and as such, the complaint is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:25.10.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
