BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 85 of 2013

Date of Institution: 29.01.2013

Date of Decision: 10.07.2015

Kulvir Singh son of Amrik Singh, resident of Village: Tong, Block Rayya, District Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Malerkotla Seed Store, carrying on its business Near State Bank of Patiala, Main Chowk, Mullanpur, District Ludhiana through its Prop./ Partner/ Principal Officer.
2. Bundelkhand Seeds Farm, Churkhi Road, Jalaun (UP), through its Chairman/ M.D/ Principal Officer.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.  Deepinder Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Exparte.

              For the Opposite Party No.2: Given up.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Kulvir Singh  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is an agriculturist and has purchased 1380 Kg. seeds of Peas of AP3 variety from Opposite Party No.1 being manufactured and marketed by Opposite Party No.2 vide bill No. 1522 dated 22.9.2012 for Rs. 96,600/- for sowing in its field of around 25 acres of land.   It was assured by Opposite Party No.1 that these are best quality seeds for produce of peas and it will give maximum production of peas. Complainant  alleges that he was astonished in the month of November-December, 2012 when he found that the produce of peas was almost negligible and there were different types of varieties of peas produce is coming out of field. The complainant immediately approached the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and told that the produce of peas is erratic and not as per the standard produce, on which representative of Opposite Party No.2 namely Sh.Harpreet Singh visited the field of complainant and he also found that the produce is almost in damage condition and is giving negligible fruit and he assured that they will suitably compensate, but he did not turned out lateron. The complainant reported the matter to Horticulture Department Baba Bakala and to see quality and condition of produce of peas in his 25 acres farm and the Horticulture Officer visited the spot and gave his report and confirmed that entire produce is damaged and seeds were of different varieties and complainant has lost the produce of season. The above said acts of the Opposite Parties for providing wrong seeds of peas to complainant resulted loss of entire produce  one production season. Complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.15 lacs, is an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mal practice and are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.15 lacs for providing wrong seeds of peas. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the seeds as alleged by the complainant  of AP3 quality were of good quality. The variation in the quality of the crop can not be attributed to the quality of the seeds alone, but thee are other factors like climate conditions, moisture contents, sowing time, sowing methods, soil physical conditions etc. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as the Opposite Party No.1 has purchased the seeds from Vipro Hybrid Seeds, 131, Indra Market, Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi vide Invoice No. 3386 dated 14.9.2012 for Rs.1,10,200/- who is necessary and proper party in the present complaint. The Agriculture Development Officer was an expert and he was supposed to give detailed report giving the details of the fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides etc. used, care and caution taken by the complainant, but he simply gave the report that the crop was damaged, but he did not  join any respectable person from the village. Said report has been given by Agriculture Development Officer in connivance with the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove that the failure of the crop was due to spurious or inferior quality of the seeds. Rather the complainant has misused the seeds of some other company and wrongly fastened the liability upon the Opposite Party No.1 by concocting story. No notice was given regarding the visit of Agriculture Development Officer. The complainant has not sent the sample of seeds for analysis in compliance of section 13(1) of the Act to prove his case and has failed to prove that the seeds were of mixed quality and thee is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.  The complainant has not taken each and every precaution like pesticides, manure, 0.52.34 baroline and carathine as per the requirements, rather the complainant misused the seeds of some other company and concocted a false story regarding damage of crop and missing the bill of Opposite Party No.1. Even the alleged report does not specify the percentage of mixture. As per literature of Opposite Party No.1, there is flowering time of 60 days regarding the seeds in question, but the complainant after purchasing the seeds never approached Opposite Party No.1 nor reported any defect in the crop. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed. However, after filing the written statement, Sh.Munish Kohli, Advocate, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1  made statement on 4.7.2014 that he does not have any instructions on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. Thereafter, fresh notice to Opposite Party No.1 was served, but none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, so Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.8.2014 of this Forum. Similarly, ld.counsel for the complainant has made separate statement that he gave up Opposite Party No.2, as such, the name of Opposite Party No.2 is deleted from the array of the Opposite Parties vide order dated 4.7.2014 of this Forum.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant.
5. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  the complainant purchased 1380 Kg. seeds of Peas of AP3 variety from Opposite Party No.1 being manufactured and marketed by Opposite Party No.2 vide bill No. 1522 dated 22.9.2012 (Ex.C3)  for Rs. 96,600/-. Complainant alleges that he has sowed the aforesaid seeds in his field.  In the month of November-December, 2012 the complainant found that the produce of peas was almost negligible and the variety of the peas was  also different. The complainant immediately approached the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and told that the produce of peas is erratic and not as per the standard produce and on which representative of Opposite Party No.2 namely Sh.Harpreet Singh visited the field of complainant and he saw the conditions of the plants and  he assured that the complainant  will be suitably compensated, but he did not turned out later on. The complainant reported the matter to Horticulture Department, Baba Bakala. Horticulture Department  appointed its Horticulture Officer who visited the field of the complainant where  the seeds of the peas were sown by the complainant who submitted his report dated 6.12.2012 Ex.C4 stating that as per the averments of the complainant, the complainant purchased the seeds of peas of AP3 variety, but at the spot, there were plants of more than one varieties and the roots were also not upto the mark. The complainant submitted  that due to the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties by providing the wrong seeds of peas to the complainant, the complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.15 lacs.  Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
6. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the complainant has concealed the  material facts from this Forum. The seeds purchased by the complainant of AP3 quality were of good variety.  The variation in the quality of the crop can not be attributed to the quality of the seeds alone, but there are other factors like climate conditions, moisture contents, sowing time, sowing methods, soil physical conditions etc.  Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the  complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the Opposite Party No.1 has purchased the seeds from Vipro Hybrid Seeds, 131, Indra Market, Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi vide Invoice No. 3386 dated 14.9.2012 for Rs.1,10,200/- who is necessary and proper party in the present complaint. The Agriculture Development Officer was supposed to give detailed report giving the details of the fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides etc. used, care and caution taken by the complainant, but he simply gave the report that the crop was damaged nor he joined any respectable person from the village. Said report has been given by Agriculture Development Officer in connivance with the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove that the failure of the crop was due to spurious or inferior quality of the seeds. Rather the complainant has misused the seeds of some other company and wrongly fastened the liability upon the Opposite Party No.1 by concocting story. No notice was given regarding the visit of Agriculture Development Officer. The complainant has not sent the sample of seeds for analysis to any agriculture laboratory. The complainant has  failed to prove that the seeds were of mixed quality. The complainant has not taken the proper precaution like pesticides, manure, irrigation, 0.52.34 baroline and carathine as per the requirements, rather the complainant misused the seeds of some other company and concocted a false story regarding damage of crop and missing the bill of Opposite Party No.1. Even the alleged report Ex.C4 of the Horticulture Development Officer does not specify the percentage of mixture. The complainant never approached Opposite Party No.1 regarding the defect in the crop or in the seeds. Opposite Party No.1 is selling the packed and sealed material of superior and good quality for the last more than 40 years. The complainant purchased the seeds in packed and sealed condition from Vipro Hybrid Seeds, 131, Indra Market, Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi and not from Opposite Party No.2, so for the sealed packed material, manufacturer is liable, but the complainant has not made said Vipro Hybrid Seeds, 131, Indra Market, Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi as party to the present complaint. Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that he has been selling the packed and sealed material of superior and good quality  from the last more than 40 years and they have never received any complaint nor Opposite Party No.1 has given any assurance to its customers as they had sold the packed and sealed material to the complainant. The seeds sold to the complainant were of good quality. The complainant has not got the seeds tested from any laboratory. As such, Opposite Party No.1 can not be held liable for any seeds, if the complainant has mixed the same with the seeds purchased from Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 through their written version has submitted that there is  no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 qua the complainant.
7. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that no doubt the complainant has stated that he purchased 1380 Kg seeds of peas AP3 variety from Opposite Party No.1 for  a sum of Rs.96,600/- as per bill/ invoice Ex.C3 on 22.9.2012 and he stated that he has sowed the said seeds in his field around 25 acres, but the complainant could not produce any revenue record pertaining to said 25 acres of land in which he has sown the aforesaid seeds of peas. He has placed on record  self declaration Ex.C7 to the effect that he had taken  the land on Pattanama/ Theka/ Lease from the following members i.e. Shanker Singh son of Assa Singh resident of village: Tong= 8 acres, Harbhej Singh son of Banta Singh, resident of village: Tong= 4 acres, Surinder Singh son of Kanav Singh resident of village: Nijjar =8 acres and Gurmej Singh son of Harbans Singh resident of village: Nijjar= 5 acres, but he did not produce/ file the revenue record of these persons as well as Patta Nama/ lease deed to prove whether these persons have such land in their names or if these persons executed any lease deed/ patta nama in the name of complainant. Not only this, the complainant has also not filed the affidavits of these persons to prove that they had such land in their names and they had given the same to the complainant on Patta/ Lease/ Theka nor the complainant has filed any copy of khasra girdawri of said land measuring 25 acres to prove that the complainant had sown the peas crop in said 25 acres of land. Apart from this, Opposite Party No.1 no doubt did not led any document in evidence as has been proceeded against exparte, but it stands fully proved on record that the complainant has purchased the aforesaid seeds of peas AP3 variety from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill Ex.C3 which were manufactured and marketed by Vipro Hybrid Seeds, 131, Indra Market, Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. Opposite Party No.1 in their written version has categorically stated that they purchased the seeds of peas from Vipro Hybrid Seeds, 131, Indra Market, Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi vide  Invoice No. 3386 dated 14.9.2012 for Rs.110,200/- and they have produced on record said Invoice.  Apart from this, Opposite Party No.1 has stated that they have purchased the aforesaid seeds in sealed packs duly manufactured and marketed by Vipro Hybrid Seeds, 131, Indra Market, Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi and sold the same to the complainant in sealed packets. So, in a such case, Vipro Hybrid Seeds, 131, Indra Market, Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi was necessary party, but the complainant did not make Vipro Hybrid Seeds, 131, Indra Market, Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi as party to the present complaint, rather  the complainant made Bundelkhand Seeds Farm, Churkhi Road, Jalaun (UP) as  Opposite Party No.2  by stating that they had manufactured and marketed the  aforesaid seeds which is totally against the facts that is why  later on the complainant gave up Opposite Party No.2 i.e.  Bundelkhand Seeds Farm, Churkhi Road, Jalaun (UP),  vide statement dated 4.7.2014. So, the complainant has intentionally not made the Vipro Hybrid Seeds, 131, Indra Market, Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi as party to the present complaint. Apart from this, the complainant did not write/ mention the batch number, date of manufacturing of the said seed packet nor the complainant sent any of the said batch number packet to any authorized public laboratory to get the same tested to prove that the seeds were not of good quality. Moreover, the complainant has failed to produce on record the compliance of other formalities i.e. proper irrigation, use of pesticides, climate condition, moisture contents, sowing time, sowing method, soil physical conditions, etc.  No doubt, the complainant has produced on record the report of Horticulture Development Officer, Baba Bakala Ex.C3, but the said Horticulture Development Officer has also failed to prove on record whether the complainant has followed all the other conditions regarding the crop of peas i.e.  proper irrigation, use of pesticides, climate condition, moisture contents, sowing time, sowing method, soil physical conditions, etc. as discussed above. The complainant has also failed to prove on record that he had sown these seeds of peas in 25 acres of land and he could not produce the availability of 25 acres of land  as the complainant has failed to produce on record any revenue record particularly in the form of khasra girdawari to prove that he had sown the peas crop in the said 25 acres of land.
8. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record  the averments made in his complaint and has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.
9. Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 10-07-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member