BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.31 of 2012                                                                  

                                                         Date of Institution         :    13.02.2012

                                                          Date of Decision   :    2.9.2016            

Sadhu Ram (now deceased) aged about 42 years son of Sh. Tilok Chand, r/o village Jamal Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, represented by his legal heirs:- (i). Silochna widow aged about 50 years, (ii) Om Parkash minor son, aged 16 years, (iii) Kiran- minor daughter, aged about 15 years and (iv) Jyoti- minor daughter aged 11 years, resident of village Jamal, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, minor through Silochna mother and natural guardian.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. 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.
2. National Seeds Corporation Limited (NSC) (A Govt. of India undertaking) Beej Bhawan, Pusa Complex, New Delhi- 110012 through its authorized signatory.
3. M/s Jain Pesticides Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa through its Proprietor.
4. M/s Dharam Pal and sons of Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa through its proprietor.
5. Jagdish Store (Kali Raman Wale) 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.M.K.Singla. Advocate for complainant.

      Sh.Deepak Goyal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

      Sh. Ajay Allawadhi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                   Opposite party no.3 exparte vide order dated 8.2.2013.

                   Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for opposite parties No.4 & 5.

ORDER

                   Initially Sadhu Ram complainant filed the present complaint against the opposite parties and after his death his legal heirs have been impleaded in the complaint.

2.                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 10 Kg. of Gawar seed of HG-563 quality and 20 Kg. of Gawar seed of HG-365 in five sealed packings of 4 Kg. each from op no.1 manufactured by op no.2 vide cash memo No.315 dated 27.6.2011 worth Rs.450/- and Rs.950/- i.e. for total amount of Rs.1350/-. At the time of purchasing the seed, it was assured by Op no.1 that the complainant will get yield of 20-25 monds per acre from HG-365 quality seed.  The complainant sowed HG-365 seed in his four acres of land and also sowed HG-563 seed in his other two acres of land. The said crop was to become ready for harvesting in 1^st half of October. However, till the end of October, 2011, the plants from HG-365 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 15^th 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 12 monds of guwar in four 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.1,69,000/- in his four 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.2,09,000/- due to selling some inferior quality/ duplicate seed by op no.1 to the complainant for which 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.

3.                On notice, Opposite party no.1 appeared, filed written statement and submitted that seeds were sold by answering op to complainant in sealed packet and also in the condition in which the same were received from manufacturing company. The answering op purchased the Gawar seed having quality HG563 lot/batch no. Oct-10-20-21-13 and HG365 lot/batch No. Oct-10-20-109-11 from M/s. Jain Pesticides, Janta Bhawan road, Sirsa vide bill No.594 dated 20.6.2011 who also purchased the same from M/s. Dharam Pal & sons vide bill No.1668 dated 20.6.2011. It is further submitted that answering op had sold the seed to various agriculturists of the area, but not even a single complaint except present one was ever received. 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.

4.                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 submitted that germination of 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 loss to the crop cannot be attributed only due to quality of the seed. All other averments have also been denied.

5.                Opposite parties No.4 & 5 also resisted the complaint by filing separate reply submitting the same version in same line as submitted by ops No.l & 2.

6.                None appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3 despite service and therefore, op no.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.2.2013.

7.                In order to make out his case,  the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of cash/credit memo Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 2.11.2011 Ex.C3, copy of jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 Ex.C4, rate list of Gawar Ex.C5. Whereas the opposite parties have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of op no.4 Ex.R1, affidavit of op no.5 Ex.R2, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R3, affidavit of op no.1 as Ex.R4 and documents Ex.R5 to Ex.R8.

8.                We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard  learned counsels for the parties.         

9.                The main dispute in this complaint as alleged by the complainant is that opposite party no.1 supplied quality of some other seed other than quality of HG-365 and same has been confirmed by team of Agricultural Officers and due to that seed,  his total crop has been affected and he suffered losses. The complainant case depends upon the report of the Agriculture department. We carefully have gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. 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 officers of the agriculture department. From the said 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.

10               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. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that non formation of team as per circular of Director of Agriculture was not fault of the complainant. However, we see no substance in this contention. 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 9^th April, 2015 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.

11.              So, complainant has failed to prove his case from all angles and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law.

12.              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.