BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No.81 of 2016.

Date of Instt.:14.03.2016.

Date of Decision: 27.09.2017.

Radha Krishna son of Mahimat Ram, resident of village Shekhupur Darholi, Tehsil District Fatehabad.

          ..Complainant

     Versus

1.Kisan Sewa Kender 80-B, Anaj Mandi, Bhattu, Tehsil and District Fatehabad through its Proprietor.

2.Super Seed 8 K M Stone Barwala Road, Talwandirana 125001, Tehsil and District Hisar.

3.M/s Laxmi Aryan Ved Parkash, 72 Anaj Mandi Bhattu-kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                                        …Respondents/OPs

Before:       Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                   Mrs.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

                   Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.

Present:      Sh.Ramjas Advocate, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.M.R.Chauahan, Advocate for the OP no.1.

                   Sh.V.K.Mehta, Advocate for the OPs No.2 and 3.

ORDER

                   The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he has taken the agriculture land measuring 13 canal 8 marla situated in village Shekhupur Daroli, District Fatehabad on lease from Balbir Singh for the year from 20.05.2015 to 19.05.2016. For sowing groundnut in the above said land the complainant contacted OP No.1 who told him that he has G.G.10 variety of groundnut seed which gives 20 quintals of yield in one Acre. Therefore on assurance of the OP no.1 the complainant purchased 20 packets of G.G.10 variety at the rate of Rs.110/-per packet vide bill No.324 on 31.05.2015. It is further averred that the said seed was sown by the complainant in the first week of June 2015 and in accordance with the guidelines of OP No.1 the complainant prepared the land and used water and fertilizer in the field. However after growing of the crop the complainant found that flowers on the crops are very less and doubted about the proper yield of the crop. Therefore the complainant filed an application in the office of Agriculture Department at Fatehabad for inspection of the field and..  On 25.09.2015 a team of Agriculture Department consisting of subject specialist, Asstt. Plant Conservator Officer and Sub-Divisional Agri Officer visited the field. On inspection the team found that only 5 to 10 groundnuts per plant were there in the roots and the same were also not fully grown and were un-ripen. Vide report 29.09.2015 the team opined that there is loss of 70% to 80% to the farmer. It is further submitted that on account of defective seed supplied by the OPs the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.55,000/-. The complainant made request to the OPs to compensate him but all in vain. It amount to deficiency on the part of OPs and due to this the  complainant has also suffered mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.

2.                On notice the OP No.1 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein a preliminary objection has been taken that groundnut seed in question was prepared and packed by Super Seed, 8 K.M. Stone, Barwala Road, Talwandi-Rana. Therefore the said company is necessary… party in the present complaint and the seed in question was purchased by OP No.1, 72, Grain Market, Bhattu Kalan is a sealed packing and was further sold to complainant in the same position.  Therefore the above said dealer is also a necessary party. However, the complainant has not impleaded the above said company and dealer as party therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In reply on merits, it is admitted by OP no.1 that the seed in dispute was purchased by the complainant from him. However it has been denied that the OP No.1 had given any assurance to the complainant that the seeds in question shall give or yield of 20 Qtls. per Acre. The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied. It is also submitted that the complainant did not follow the guide-lines for preparation of land for sowing and using of water and fertilizer and as such the less yield is attributed to the complainant himself. The OP No.1 further prayed for dismissal of the complaint being devoid of merit.

3                 After filing of written statement by OP No.1 the complainant submitted an application for impleading OPs No.2 and 3 as parties. The said application was allowing and OPs No.2 and 3 were added as parties. Thereafter OP No.2 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written statement wherein it is submitted that Kharif crop like any other crops depends, apart from the quality of seeds, upon climate condition, time of sowing, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of nutrient and effective use of fertilizers etc. For a good crop correct agriculture practice has to be followed. Seed by itself without the other requirements cannot give good crop. It is further submitted that the seeds was processed and packed as per Seeds Act and Rules and Government instructions. The entire operation is supervised by technically qualified and trained officers right from the fields to the packing centre. Instructions were also printed but the same were not followed by the complainant. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on the file to prove that the seed purchased from the OPs was actually sown by the complainant. There is no conclusive proof on the file that failure of crop is attributable to the seeds. It is also submitted that the present complaint is concocted and after thought and has been filed to extort money from the OPs. It is further submitted that inspction of the field was not carried out by an authorized team and the same is in violation of Government Instructions dated 03.01.2002. Therefore the report of Inspection Committee cannot be relied upon. It is also further submitted that there is no report of any laboratory or opinion of any expert on the file to prove that the seeds sold to the complainant by the OPs was sub-standard or defective.  Finally a prayer for dismissal of the complainant has been made by the OP No.2.

4.                OP No.3 despite proper service did not put his appearance before the Forum and as such he was proceeded ex-parte.

5.                In evidence the complainant has produced his affidavit as Annexure as CW1/A wherein he has testified the averments made in the complaint. To prove his case the complainant has tendered in evidence the documents as Ex.C-1 i.e. cash memo of purchase of seeds, Receipt of payment for lease as Ex.C-2. Inspection report as Ex.C-3, copy of jamabandi as Ex.C-4 and copy of girdawari as Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence. Whereas on behalf of OP No.2 Sh.Naresh Kumar Garg, Director filed an affidavit in evidence as Annexure R-1. In support his case the OP No.2 has also tendered documents in evidence as Annexure R-2 to Annexure R-9 and closed its evidence.

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments reiterated the averments made in the complainant and further contended that all the precautions were taken and all the guidelines of OPs were followed in preparation of land for sowing the seed in question. Proper water, fertilizer and nutrients wa used in cultivation of the crop. However the yield as assured by the OP No.1 was not given by the crop. This all is in account of sub-standard and defective seed supplied by the OPs. Very less yield of groundnut is well proved from the inspection report dated 29.09.2015 wherein the inspection team has clearly reported that there is a loss of 70% to 80% to the complainant. In view of the report dated 29.09.2015 the deficiency on the part of OPs in supplying the defective/ sub-standard seed is proved beyond any doubt. Therefore the complainant is entitled for recovery of loss and compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him. The counsel further prayed for acceptance of the complaint. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the complainant has put reliance on the case law titled as Mahinder Hybrid Seeds Vs. Suba Rao and another Maharashtra and reported as II(2004) CPJ 529, Sanjay Agro International Vs. Khajan Singh and reported as II(2004) CPJ 655 and Nath Seeds Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Seeds (Maharashtra SCDL) reported as 111(1999) CPJ 10.

7.                On the other hand the learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 vehemently rebutted the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant and reiterated the averments made in their respective written statements. It is contended by the learned counsel that apart from the quality of seeds the crops depends upon climatic conditions, quality of soil and water, irrigation, correct agriculture practice, effective use of fertilizers and nutrients. It is also further contended that there is no fault in the genetic purity and germination of seeds sold to complainant as is evident from Annexure R-3. It is further contended that the team constituted for inspection of the field was not in accordance with the instruction issued by the Government on 03.01.2002. The complainant has failed to tender any conclusive proof to prove that the seeds in question are defective or sub-standard. There is no expert opinion or report of any authorized laboratory to establish that the seeds sold to complainant are defective. The learned counsels further prayed for dismissal of the complaint being with any merit.

8.                We have examined all the documents placed on record of the case file and have also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The case of the complainant is that defective/sub-standard seed of groundnut was sold to him by the Ops and on account of the same, the complainant has suffered 70% to 80% loss in the yield of the crop, however, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove by producing any cogent or convincing evidence that the seed sold by the OP was defective or sub-standard. It is a settled proposition of law that a crop apart from the quality of seeds depends upon so many factors such as climatic conditions, time of sowing, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of nuterient, use of fertilizer and correct agriculture practices. In the present case the inspecting team of the Agriculture Department in its inspection report dated 25.09.2015 has only reported that only 5 to 10% groundnut per plant were there in the roots and the same was also not fully grown and there is a loss of 70% to 80% to the farmer. However the inspecting team has nowhere reported that the less yield was on account of defective or inferior seeds sold by the OP. There is no other report of any authorized laboratory or opinion of agriculture scientist/expert on the file to prove that the seeds sold by the OP were defective or inferior. So, in absence of the same it cannot be held that the seeds sold by the OP are defective. Whereas vide Annexure P3, the Op has established that the lot of seed which was sold to the complainant has 90% germination. The case law titled as Mahindra Hybreed Vs. Suba Rao and case law titled as Sanjay Agro Vs. Khajan Singh(supra) relied upon by the complainant are not applicable in the present case as in both these cases, the inspecting team has opined that the less crop is on account of defective seeds. But, in the present case, there is no opinion that the seed sold by Op are defective. The other case law relied upon by the complainant is also not applicable in the present case as the facts of the present case are different and distinguishable.

7.                So in view of the discussion as made above we do not find any deficiency on the part of the OPs in rendering service to the complainant. The present complaint is accordingly dismissed.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.  File be consigned after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 27.09.2017.

(Raghbir Singh)

     President

             (Ansuya Bishnoi)  (R.S.Panghal)           District Consumer Disputes                         

     Member                 Member                  Redressal Forum,Fatehabad