BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.33 of 2012
Date of Institution : 13.02.2012
Date of Decision : 2.9.2016
Pala Ram aged about 40 years son of Sh. Lal Chand, r/o village Jamal, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Kuldeep Pesticides, village Jamal, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its proprietor Kuldeep son of Sh. Chain Roop Oswal, r/o village Jamal, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
- National Seeds Corporation Limited (NSC) (A Govt. of India undertaking) Beej Bhawan, Pusa Complex, New Delhi- 110012 through its authorized signatory.
...…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.M.K.Singla. Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Deepak Goyal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Ajay Allawadhi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is an agriculturist and owns and possesses agricultural land in village Jamal, Tehsil and District Sirsa. On the recommendation of op no.1, the complainant purchased 12 Kg. of HG-365 Guwar seed in three sealed packings of 4 Kg. each manufactured by op no.2 in the last week of June, 2011 for an amount of Rs.540/-. At the time of purchasing the seed, it was assured by Op no.1 that the complainant will get 20-25 monds gawar per acre. The op no.1 did not issue any cash memo/ bill to the complainant. The complainant sown the said seeds in his three acres of land as per the direction of Op no.1. The said crop was to become ready for harvesting in 1st half of October. However, till the end of October, 2011, the plants grew to the unexpected straight height but the same did not yield much flowers and fruits. The small quantity of fruits, which grew on these plants had to take much time for maturing. Then he moved an application to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa, on 13.10.2011 for inspection of his field. The officers/ officials of the Agriculture Department visited his field and inspected the same and reported that plants which have been grown in the field are not from HG-365 quality seed, rather the same are of some other quality seed and that the same will take much time in maturing. It is further averred that till 15th of November, 2011, the crop had not matured and there was only expectation of 3-4 monds crop per acre. Till then, the time for sowing mustard crop had elapsed and other farmers had even sown wheat crop in their fields. So, the complainant finding no other alternate prematurely harvested the said guwar crop so that he may be able to sow wheat crop and may not suffer loss to his next crop. The complainant get only 9 monds of guwar in three acres while the average production of HG365 seed is 7-8 quintal per acre. The complainant suffered loss of 15/16 monds per acre and per quintal rate of guwar is Rs.6500/- and in this manner, he suffered a total loss of Rs.1,26,750/- in his three acres crop. The complainant also could not sow sarson crop in his field and also could not sow wheat crop well in time and thus, he will suffer a loss of Rs.10,000/- per acre. Thus, the complainant has suffered a net loss of Rs.1,56,750/- due to selling some inferior quality/ duplicate seed by op no.1 to the complainant for which both the opposite parties are liable to indemnify the complainant. He is also entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Opposite party no.1 appeared, filed written statement and submitted that no seed was ever purchased by the complainant from answering op. The answering op issues cash memo to every farmer who purchases the seeds from him. The seed marketed by manufacturing company was of high quality. The answering op is not responsible for the quality of seeds. It has been further submitted that it seems that complainant by exercising his influence has managed to obtain some false report and that too without seeking the version of op no.1. Even otherwise also, the said report is vague as it is not disclosing the square number and killa number of the land allegedly owned and possession by complainant as well as the land allegedly inspected by the inspecting team. The alleged inspecting team never joined answering op at the time of alleged inspection and as such alleged inspection report is not binding upon answering op. Moreover, the persons of inspecting team were not competent to determine the quality of the seed. The other contents of the complaint have also been denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. Opposite party no.2 contested the complaint by filing separate reply submitting therein that op no.1 is not the authorized dealer of op no.2. The alleged seed was not purchased by the complainant from its authorized dealer, so the answering op is not the manufacture company of alleged seeds. The selling price of the Gawar seed is Rs.38/- per Kg. The State Farms Corporation of India Limited, Regional Office Jaipur has not sold the seed to op no.1 but it had been sold to authorized dealer of answering op i.e. M/S Durga Sales Agency, Bhiwani. As the seed were not supplied by answering op to op no.1, so it cannot be said that the seed supplied by op no.1 is the original one. The complainant has never made any complaint to the answering op nor made any complaint to its local office i.e. Director, Central State Farms, Sirsa Road, Hisar or State Farms Corporation of India Limited, Jaipur or State Farms Corporation of India Limited, Farm Bhawan, 14-15, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The seed of op no.2 were duly tested and passed by the Seed Testing Laboratory Agriculture Department, Sri Ganga Nagar (Rajasthan) and also by other laboratories. It is also pleaded that less crop depends upon so many factors like the method of sowing the crop, irrigation, quality and kind of the land, environmental changes, kind of water and timings of watering the field etc., so damage to the crop cannot be attributed only due to quality of the seed. All other averments have also been denied.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of letter dt. 2.11.2011 Ex.C2, copy of application dated 14.11.2011 Ex.C3, copy of jamabandi Ex.C4, affidavit of Surender Kumar Ex.C5. Whereas the opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1. OP no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, and dealerwise sale report of Gawar seeds Ex.R2.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsels for the parties.
6. As per the pleaded case of the complainant, he had purchased 12 Kgs. of HG-365 Gawar seed from opposite party no.1, but op no.1 has specifically averred that complainant has not purchased any kind of seed from him. There is nothing, at all, to prove or to presume that opposite party no.1 is the dealer or authorized agent of opposite party no.2. In this regard, opposite party no.2 has specifically pleaded that opposite party no1 is neither the agent, nor authorized dealer of opposite party no.2. The main ingredient of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that complainant is consumer of the opposite parties is not proved on record. Therefore, the complainant has totally failed to prove the basis of his case that he had purchased the seeds from opposite party no.1. As op no.2 has also pleaded that op no.1 is not their authorized dealer, therefore, in the circumstances, case of the complainant, against the opposite party no.2 is also not maintainable.
7. Further the complainant in order to prove loss of crop, is relying upon the report of the Agriculture department attached with the letter Ex.C2. We carefully have gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. In the report it is mentioned by Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Sirsa that seed of Gawar was of some other variety other than variety HF-365, however, no sample of seed was sent to the Lab. for analysis. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officials of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officials of the agriculture department. From report 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.
8. As per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R3, issued to all the Deputy Director in the State in which it is directed by the Director Agriculture, 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. In this report, it is mentioned that this report was prepared only by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and is bearing his signatures only. This report is not conclusive and the same is defective one. Even, no notice was issued to Ops for spot verification.
9. So, complainant has failed to prove his case from all angles and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law.
10. 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:2.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
