BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 189 of 2017
Date of Institution : 31.7.2017
Date of Decision : 18.12.2017
Balbir Singh son of Sh. Sahi Ram, R/o village Dhudianwali, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Kissan Beej Kendre, Shop No.56-57 Janta Bhawan Road Sirsa, through its Auth. Person/ Manager.
2. Bayer Bio Science Private Limited. Ohris Tec. Park Limited Plot No.13, Survey No. 64/ 2, Siftware Units Layout VBIT Park Road, Madhopur, Hydrabad- 500081, Telegana (India) through Managing Director/ Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA……………………….PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. A.S. Koura , Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
ORDER
Case of complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist and whole family members of the complainant depend upon the sole earning out of agricultural produce of the complainant. That the complainant is having agricultural land measuring 39 kanals 11 marlas situated at village Dhudianwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa and the said land is being managed and supervised by the complainant and cultivated by him for the last more than 20 years. It is further averred that in the past years, the complainant so many times sown the Bajra seeds/ crop in his above said land as per his experience and the same was well being maintained and supervised by complainant and resultantly he was getting yield of about 16/17 quintal per acre. It is further averred that the complainant in the month of June, 2017 i.e. on 29.6.2017 before sowing millet (bajra) seed, believing upon the quality of seeds sold by op no.1 on behalf of op no.2, approached the op no.1 and showed his desire for purchase of best quality bajra seeds enabling him to get best fruits from the seeds. It is further averred that op no.1 after asking the kind, nature and irrigation sources as well as past result of the agricultural land from the complainant, supplied him five bags of Bapra 9444 (Bayer) Bajra seeds for a sum of Rs.2150/- vide bill/ cash memo No.14125 dated 29.6.2017 manufactured by op no.2 stating it to be sufficient for the said five acres of land. The op no.1 fully assured about the originality of the seeds and its better result. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant as per the directions of op no.1 and also being an experienced farmer sown the bajra seeds in the agricultural land measuring 39 kanal 11 marlas comprised in Sq. No.143 Killa No.7/22, 14/1, 14/2, 17/1, 17/2, 24 Sq No.173 Killa No.4 situated in village Dhudianwali. That the complainant supervised the field and irrigated the same time to time properly and was hoping very good result from the said bajra crop and also spent a huge amount for sowing the said seed but all his dreams shattered and complainant suffered a heavy mental shock when he noticed that there was no production of flowers/ plant germination of the said bajra crop and the complainant also as per his experience noticed about 100% non production of the crop. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant approached to the Agricultural Officer at Sirsa for spot inspection in the field of the complainant to assess the loss of bajra crop upon which Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer alongwith Block Agricultural Officer Rania inspected the field of complainant in the presence of complainant, officials of op no.1 as well as other respectable of the village and noticed the less production of flowers/ plant of bajra crop and declared the non production/ fruits of the bajra and assessed 100% loss of crop in the field of the complainant and this loss to the crop of complainant has been happened only due to spurious/ inferior quality/ mix branded/ duplicate seeds supplied by op no.1. The Officers of Agriculture Department submitted their inspection report dated 17.7.2017. That thereafter the complainant approached the op no.1 and complained about the loss to his crop and also requested him for the payment of compensation but the op no.1 himself and on behalf of op no.2 did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and rather rebuked the complainant and openly refused to do anything in the matter despite the fact that the officials of op no.1 at the time of spot inspection by the Agriculture Officers fully assured about the payment of compensation equivalent to the loss of crops and other expenses suffered by the complainant. It is further averred that complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,60,000/- i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- due to loss of bajra crop and Rs.40,000/- due to loss of straw. Besides this, the complainant also spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- for sowing the crop and also spent an amount of Rs.2150/- for the purchase of above said seeds. That due to act and conduct of the ops, the complainant has suffered a lot of harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 did not appear despite service and therefore, op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that neither the agriculture department nor the complainant himself issued any notice to the ops before inspecting the field of the complainant or before submitting the report regarding the losses suffered by the complainant, if any on account of any alleged defect in the seed of Bajra allegedly used by the complainant. The procedure prescribed u/s 13 (1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act which is mandatory has not been followed by the Agriculture Department and without that it could not be possibly opined that the seed purchased by the complainant was defective and that the loss, if any suffered by the complainant was on account of the seed purchased by the complainant, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is worthwhile to mention that even the complainant did not file any application before this Forum to send the sample to the approved lab. for testing. It is further submitted that even the answering op no.2 was having no opportunity to apply for sending the sample to an approved lab. for its testing because no notice was issued and served to the ops during the shelf life of the material. The alleged inspection of fields of complainant conducted by the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer is defective one and not in accordance with the directions issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana. It is further submitted that good crop is not only dependent upon the quality of seed but also depends upon so many other factors like quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer and quality of pesticide used by the farmer and weather conditions at the relevant time. Since, the complainant or the inspection team has failed to point out about the other factors, therefore, it cannot be presumed that non germination of the seeds was on account of defective seeds and not due to other factors. It is further averred that complainant has not annexed any copy of the jamabandi or the khasra girdawari showing ownership or possession of the land measuring 39 kanal 11 marla or the factum of sowing bajra in the said land at the relevant point of time. With these averments, dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, affidavit of Rajinder Kumar son of Manphool, resident of village Dhudianwali Ex.PW2/B, copy of cash memo Ex.P1, copy of letter dated 25.7.2017 Ex.P3, copy of application moved to District Agriculture Officer Ex.P5, copy of jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 Ex.P6 and copy of mutation Ex.P7. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Manoj Yadav, Regional Manager Ex.P1, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R2, copy of report of laboratory Ex.R3, writings of various other farmers, bills, copies of pass book as well as jamabandis Ex.R4 to Ex.R24 and copy of power of attorney Ex.R25.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.PW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. He has also furnished affidavit of Rajinder Kumar a co-villager as Ex.P2/B who has supported the case of the complainant. The complainant has also produced on file copy of cash memo bearing No.14125 dated 29.6.2017 Ex.P1 vide which the seed in question was purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.2150/-. He has also placed on record copies of revenue record in the shape of copy of jamabandi for year 2011-2012 Ex.P6 and copy of mutation Ex.P7 showing his ownership of the land in the question.
7. The op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Manoj Yadav, Regional Manager as Ex.R1 wherein he has reiterated the version of op no.2 and has also stated that sample of one of the batch No.X218904125 was sent by DDA, Sirsa to the Seed Testing Laboratory, Uchani, Karnal which is a Govt. Authority and in its report dated 11.8.2017, it is reported that the purity of the seed of this batch is found to 100%. The opposite party no.2 has also placed on record copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 as Ex.R2, copy of test report Ex.R3 and writings of various farmers alongwith bills, revenue record as Ex.R4 to Ex.R24.
8. The complainant has placed on file copy of inspection report conducted by the Officers of the Agriculture Department. From the perusal of the record it appears that complainant moved an application to the District Agriculture Officer on 14.7.2017 for spot inspection and the copy of the said application has been placed on file as Ex.P5. Accordingly, the team of the Agriculture Officers consisting of Sub Divisional Officer, Sirsa and Block Agriculture Officer, Rania visited the field of the complainant on 17.7.2017 and submitted their report that there was no germination of the seeds in question and due to non germination of bajra seed, the complainant has suffered financial loss and they have written to M/s Kissan Beej Centre to provide sample of the above said seed. Now coming to the plea of the opposite party no.2 that no notice of inspection was given to either of the ops, it may be mentioned here that it is the specific assertion of the complainant that he made complaint to opposite party no.1 regarding non germination of seed and the inspection was also conducted in the presence of the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 has failed to appear before this Forum rather opted to be proceeded against exparte. Therefore, it cannot be said that no notice/ intimation was given to op no.1. Even otherwise, the opposite party no.1 on complaint could have also get inspected the fields of the complainant to know the exact reason for non germination of the seed but he has failed to do so. Moreover, op no.1 was asked to provide sample of the seed in question by the inspecting team for testing of the same but op no.1 has also failed to do so. In so far as contention of opposite party no.2 that no notice was issued to it is concerned, the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Narsi, 2011 (4) CPJ 264 relied upon by learned counsel for complainant has held that “Though counsel for the petitioner has filed letter dated 3.1.2002 from the Director of Agriculture, Panchkula, Haryana, to Dy. Directors (Agriculture) in the State of Haryana, yet it is not known whether the said directions continued to be in force till the year 2009. Moreover, it may not be always possible to associate the representative of the seed agency.”
9. The opposite party no.2 has placed on file various writings of other farmers who have allegedly given in writing that they sowed the above said seed in their fields and have allegedly stated about good quality of the seed in question but these writings have not been proved through reliable and cogent evidence. Mere production of alleged writings of various persons in this regard without producing even a single affidavit of any of those persons is not sufficient to discharge the onus upon the op no.2. The writings of other alleged farmers seem to be managed and manipulated. Moreover, the op no.2 has not taken this plea in its reply that there was no complaint about the seed in question from any other farmers. It is settled principle of law that evidence beyond pleadings cannot be looked into. The complainant has alleged 100% non germination of the seeds in question and the report of inspection also supports the case of the complainant in this regard and this can be only due to inferior quality of the seed in question otherwise some plants could have grown from the said seed. The copy of test report relied upon by op no.2 as Ex.R3 reveals that sample was received in the laboratory on 14.7.2017 whereas the inspecting team inspected the field of the complainant on 17.7.2017. The said test report is a mere copy which has been tendered in evidence but has not been proved through any reliable and cogent evidence. So, it is proved on record that complainant suffered total loss of crop due to defective seed supplied by op no.1 which is manufactured by op no.2. The authority cited by learned counsel for op no.2 in case titled as Kuber Agro Corporation and others vs. Gurmeet Singh & others, 2017 (2) CLT 247 (NC) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the present case the officers of Agriculture Department asked the op no.1 to provide sample of seed. The judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Prerna Vs. Seed Works India Pvt. Ltd. & anr. 2016 (4) CLT 507 is also not applicable in this case being on different footing. The authorities of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana cited by learned counsel for op no.2 in cases titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and others, 2007(2) CLT 683 and Raghuveer Singh vs. Gupta Fertilizers etc. FA No.521 of 2016 decided on 4.10.2017 regarding identity of the land are also not applicable in this case because the complainant has duly mentioned the square numbers and killa numbers of his land in his application moved to the Agriculture Department as well as in his complaint. Therefore, it is proved beyond any doubt that the complainant suffered due to defective seed supplied by op no.1 manufactured by op no.2.
10. Now we assess the loss of the crop to the complainant due to defective seed in question. The complainant has alleged that expected yield of seed in question was 16/17 quintal per acre but we take the minimum yield of 12 quintals per acre and thus the total loss of 39 kanal 11 marlas land is approximately 60 quintals of crop. The minimum support price (MSP) for kharif crops of 2017-2018 season i.e. for bajra crop as per Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare is Rs.1425/- per quintal and thus the total loss of crops comes to Rs.85,500/-. The complainant has also alleged that he suffered loss of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of straw on account of non production of bajra crop but we accept the loss in this regard as Rs.20,000/-. The complainant has also alleged that he purchased the seed in question for a sum of Rs.2150/- and also spent about Rs.20,000/- as expenses for sowing the seed in question. No doubt, the farmer has to spend some amount for sowing the crop i.e. for preparing the field and water etc. but in the absence of any evidence in this regard, we are of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.10,000/- for preparing the field including purchase of seed in question (the bill of which is placed on file) has been spent by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment in addition to Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. As such, the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,15,500/- as loss of crop, straw and expenses incurred by him for sowing the seed in question purchased from the opposite parties. Besides, this as mentioned above the complainant is also entitled to another amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses from the ops.
11. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the principal amount of Rs.1,15,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @4% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 31.7.2017 till actual payment within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the interest will be increased to @9% per annum after the expiry of said 30 days. We also direct the ops to further pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:18.12.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
