THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 152 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 02-06-2014.
Date of Decision: -31.3.2015.
Shri Rajpal Singh son of Shri Chattar Singh, resident of village Baund Kalan, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Madan Khad Bhandar, Bus Stand Baund Kalan, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani, through its owner/prop.
- Sat Jinda Kalyana Plant and Company V.P.O. Kahnaur, tehsil Kalanaur, district Rohtak, through its M.D./Prop.
…...Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Sitting: Shri B.D.Yadav, President,
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,
Present: Shri Kuldeep Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate, for respondents.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased 40 Kgs. Wheat Crop seeds of brand C-306 for a sum of Rs.1600/- vide bill dated 20.11.2013 from respondent No.1. It is further alleged that the seeds were sown properly as per agricultural norms in his cultivable land. The further case of the complainant is that the growth of the above said Wheat crops was not up to the mark and two types of plants grown up in the fields on account of low quality of seeds sold by respondent No.1. The complainant further alleged that he approached the officers of Agriculture department at Bhiwani and requested to inspect the crops. The Dy. Director Agriculture, Bhiwani constituted a committee for the inspection of the Wheat crops. The complainant further alleged that the committee visited the spot and observed that standing crops is having two type of plants in which 30% plants were of exceptionally higher size whereas 70% were of less height. The complainant further alleged that he requested the respondents to compensate for the loss but they flatly refused to accede the demand. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He
2. The respondents on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that from the same lot. The seeds were supplied to the other farmers and nobody has made any complaint about the quality of the seeds. It is submitted that the complainant properly did not sow the seeds, according to the company guidelines. It is further submitted that the complainant had purchased only 40 Kgs Wheat crop seeds for sowing in his 13 acre land, whereas for the proper cultivation farmers need to sow 40 Kgs seeds for each acre and as such the complainant has no knowledge about the cultivation nor had taken any assistance of any other farmer therefore the respondents are not liable for the same. It is further submitted that the complainant had not given any notice or information about the alleged inspection. Hence, the alleged inspection report is wrong, illegal, against law and facts and has been manipulated with the committee and same is not binding on the respondents. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against answering respondent.
3. Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits to prove their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Provisions of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act have not been followed as onus to prove any defect was on the complainant and this could have been done either by getting the seed, tested from Seed Testing Laboratory or by obtaining an expert opinion of an Agriculture Scientist or qualified agriculture officer which has not been done. He further contended that report of the Committee is not binding upon the respondents as they were not joined at the time of inspection of the fields of complainant So, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. There cannot be any dispute on the question of facts and law that the onus of proof lies with the complainant to prove his case. But the ground realities in the case in hand are different because a farmer cannot be expected to retain any part of high value seed to get it tested in case of unforeseen contingency like the one which has been argued by counsel for the respondents. He was unable to satisfy the Forum as to why the respondents did not get the seeds tested especially when Wheat Crop seeds of brand C-306 are available to them. They are seed producer and always have some quantity of seed left with them and they could have got tested and brought the report on file. It seems that it is their failure to perform these tests. In our view the Provision of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act have been complied with by the complainant as he had led in evidence Annexure C4 report of the Committee. From the perusal of above said report, the Committee has clearly opined that standing crops is having two type of plants in which 30% plants are of exceptionally higher size and 70% are of less height. Meaning thereby there is no need to get the seed tested from the Laboratory because crop was inspected by the committee and said report cannot be disbelieved on the ground that no Laboratory report has been produced on record. The report reveals that the seeds were not of good quality and the complainant could not get expected yield. Ld. Counsel for complainant also referred 2013(4) CPJ 241 and 2008(2) CPJ 496 vide which compensation was awarded to the aggrieved persons. The complainant has suffered loss due to defective seeds.
8. The Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that no representative of seed producing company has been associated by the complainant at the time of alleged inspection. So, report cannot be believed as true.
9. In our view the arguments of counsel for the respondents has no merit in view of the circumstances of the case. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased 40 Kgs. Wheat Crop seeds of brand C-306 for a sum of Rs.1600/- vide bill dated 20.11.2013 from respondent No.1. It is admitted fact that said seeds were sown by complainant in his land. Moreover, no allegation of any kind had been levelled by the respondents against committee regarding ill will or any motive. So, merely non participation of the representative of respondents not fatal when the committee is having no malafide intention or ill-will. Therefore, mere allegation that no representative of producer or seller has been joined in the inspecting team is not fatal.
10. The counsel for the respondents further contended that no expert report about the alleged defect in the seed has been produced by the complainant. So, it cannot be proved that the seeds were defective in actual. He further contended that the loss to the crop or defect in the crop depends upon various factors including water quality, irrigation, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing method, moisture contents at the time of sowing the crop and physical conditions. But no report has been produced on record to prove these facts.
11. The further argument of learned counsel for the respondents is that no Khewat/Khatuni and Khasra numbers of the field of complainant have been given in the report as well as in the complaint itself. Moreover, no help of Patwari was taken to identify the field.
12. In our view, this plea of Ld. Counsel for the respondents has no substance because from the perusal of Annexure “H” photo stat copy of Jamabandi the complainant is owner of the agriculture land. So, it is clear from the above referred document that the complainant is owner of the agriculture land where he had sown the Wheat crop seeds. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had purchased the 40 Kgs Wheat Crop Seeds vide bill Annexure “A “and this document is also sufficient to prove that he had purchased the above said seed for sowing the same in the agriculture land and not for any other purpose.
13. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above it has been clearly proved that due to poor and sub-standard quality of seeds, the growth of the Wheat crops was not up to the mark there are two type of plants standing in the field on account of low quality of seeds sold by respondent No.1 due to which the complainant has deprived of income of land and has to bear the losses. Though there is no report regarding volume of loss caused to the complainant and variety of seeds. Yet it has been established that the seeds purchased by the complainant. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the respondents are directed:-
1- To pay Rs.2500/- per acre as compensation to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its final realization.
2- To refund Rs.1600/- the cost of the seeds.
3- To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.
14. However, it is made clear that respondent No.2 being producer of Seed in question is liable to pay 70% of the total compensation and remaining 30% shall be paid by respondent No.1 being seller of the seed in question.
The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 31.3.2015.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anita Sheoran), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member
