BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.203 of 2015
Date of Institution : 13.11.2015
Date of Decision : 3.10.2016
Shri Dharam Chand Solanki Advocate son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal, resident of village Dhingtania, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. (KRIBHCO) Sewa Kendra, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa through its Incharge.
- Krishak Bharti Coperative Ltd. (KRIBHCO) Zonal Office, Hisar.
...…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.D.C. Solanki, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Mahesh Pareek, Advocate for Opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that in the month of June, 2015 the complainant visited the op no.1 for purchase of H.G. 2.20 Gawar seed and op no.1 had sold 12 Kg. of Gawar seed to the complainant and had charged a sum of Rs.984/- vide bill No.74552 dated 6.6.2015 from him. At the time of sale of the said seed, op no.1 had assured the complainant that seed is of very good quality and also assured that complainant would get better yield. The complainant sowed the said seed in two acres of agricultural land. However, when the crop grown up to 1 to 2 feet, it came to the notice of the complainant that quality of the seed was not pure whereas there was mixture of other quality of gawar seed in the same and on account of which he has suffered loss of 50% of crop. The complainant approached op no.1 but it did not pay any heed. Then on 214.7.2015 he moved an application to Agricultural Department, Sirsa for inspection and assessment of loss suffered by the complainant, upon which team of Agricultural Department visited the spot and inspected the same. After due inspection, they have prepared their report dated 31.7.2015 vide which they have assessed the loss to the extent of 35 to 40 %, however, actually the complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 50%. Thereafter, the complainant approached the ops several times and requested to compensate him and also got served a legal notice dated 30.9.2015, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Opposite parties appeared and filed written statement. It is replied that yield of a particular crop depends on various factors like climatic conditions, soil and health of the specific piece of land and irrigation etc. The complainant has not provided the sample of seed allegedly purchased from answering ops or batch number thereof for proper investigation. During the period of Kharif-2015, there was common complaint of disease namely white fly to the Gawar crop and cotton crop in all of the north India. The authenticity of the site inspection and assessment report are also highly questionable being prepared at the back of answering ops. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. Whereas the ops have tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex. R2 to Ex.R8.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsels for the parties.
5. The main dispute in this complaint is that gawar seed sold by the opposite parties was mixed and sub standard seed and due to that seed, the crop of the complainant has been affected and he has suffered loss to the extent of 50%. The complainant case depends upon the report Ex.C8 of the Agriculture department. We carefully have gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. It would not be out of place to mention here that the officials of the agriculture department have not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officials of the Agriculture department. From report Ex.C8 the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. Holding these views we have relied upon the observation of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in a case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 in which it was clearly 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, 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 report Ex.C8 is not conclusive and the same is defective one. No notice was issued to Ops for spot verification. Moreover, report says that complainant has suffered loss of 15-20% but it does not pin point any defect towards the seed in question. The opposite parties have placed on file documents to show that at the relevant time, the reason behind low productivity of gawar crop was due to drought and whitefly insect infestation and therefore, it cannot be said that complainant suffered loss due to the defective seed supplied by ops.
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:3.10.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
