BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.3 of 2014                                                                    

                                                         Date of Institution         :    08.01.2014

                                                          Date of Decision   :     20.1.2017.

Kamaljeet @ Vicky son of Sh. Swaran Singh, resident of village Habuana, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. Kundan Lal Badal and sons, Badal Walo Ki Hatti, Mandi Dabwali Distt. Sirsa through its Prop/ Partner/ Manager.

2. M/s Radhey Shyam and sons Sangria Road, Mandi Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.

3. Parbhat Agri Biotech Ltd., Plot No.22, Teja Market Sirsa Road behind Highway Hotel, 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.S. Sra, Advocate for the complainant.

      Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties.

ORDER

                   Case of the complainant, in brief is that on 31.5.2013, he had purchased 4 packets of cotton seeds from opposite party no.1 for an amount of Rs.3100/- vide receipt No.1094 and at that time op no.1 had assured the complainant about the best quality of the said seed. The complainant sowed the said seed in his acres of agriculture land as per directions of op no.1 but the crop did not gain height as well as did not give any tinda. Then he came to know that op no.1 had given him duplicate seed. He immediately met with op no.1 and told him about the loss but he did not hear him. Thereafter, he moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa and requested for inspection of his fields. The Deputy Commissioner directed the Agricultural Director for the inspection of his field who got inspected the same and gave report vide letter No.957/TA dated 13.11.2013 and clearly mentioned that the complainant has suffered loss of 70% crop. The complainant has suffered loss of about rupee one lac and had also spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- for sowing the crop and has also suffered mental harassment etc. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written version submitting therein that variation in the condition of the crop cannot be attributed to the quality of the seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moister and soil physical condition. The complainant has not furnished the report of any expert/ lab test report about the quality of seeds. The op no.1 sold the seed to the complainant in duly packed and sealed seed packets in the same condition in which the same were received by op no.1 from the company. The answering op was not served with any notice of spot inspection nor was joined/associated in the alleged spot inspection. In the inspection report, no defect in the seed has been attributed and there is no mention of square and killa numbers wherein the inspection was conducted. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied. 

3.                Opposite parties no.2 and 3 in their separate replies have averred that the alleged inspection of field of complainant was not conducted in accordance to the letter memo No.52-70/TA(SS) dated PKL the 3.1.2002, issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula. Besides that they have also pleaded their case on similar lines as pleaded by opposite party no.1. They have also asserted that complainant never reported any defect in the seeds to them. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.

4.                The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, cash/credit memo dated 31.5.2013 Ex.C2, copy of application dated 20.10.2013 moved to Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa Ex.C3, inspection report Ex.C4, letter dated 18.11.2013 Ex.C5, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C6, Khasra Girdawari Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops tendered affidavit of op no.2 Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. Nachhatar Singh, Area Sales Manager Ex.R2, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R3

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                The main dispute in this complaint is that cotton seed sold by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant was defective and due to that seed, he has suffered loss of 70% of crop. The complainant case depends upon the inspection report Ex.C4 of the Agriculture department. We carefully have gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. Although, it is mentioned in the said report that there is possibility of loss to the extent of 70% crop but it is not mentioned in the report that said loss is due to defective seed. No sample of seed was sent to the Lab. for analysis. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by them. From report Ex.C4 the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. In an authority of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683  it was 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.

7.                Further, as per letter of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dated 3.1.2002 (copy Ex.R3), issued to all the Deputy Directors in the State, it has been directed by the Director Agriculture that fields of complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/ KVK, HAU. However, in the inspection report Ex.C4, it is mentioned that inspection was conducted by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali and Block Agriculture Officer, Dabwali and the report is bearing signatures of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali only. This report is not conclusive and the same is defective one. Even, no notice was issued to Ops for spot verification. So, report obtained by complainant without notice to ops cannot be relied upon.  

8.                So, complainant has failed to prove his case and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law. 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: 20.1.2017.                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                              Member.                      Redressal Forum, Sirsa.