Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/392/2018

Sharwan singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Arora Trading Company - Opp.Party(s)

S.K Dharnia

19 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

 

                             Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                   Smt.Harisha Mehta and Dr.K.S.Nirania, Members

                            

                                                                Complaint No: 392 of 2018.                                                                                                          Date of Instt.:  14.11.2018.

                                                              Date of Order: 19.07.2023.

 

Sharwan Singh son of Daula Ram son of Mangala resident of village Sarwarpur District Fatehabad.          

                                                                   Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.M/s Arora Trading Company 4-5 B, Shivalya Market, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Proprietor/Manager.

2.Bayer Bio-Science Private Limited, Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane-400607, Maharashtra through its Director/authorized signatory.

 

                                                          Opposite parties.

 

                             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer                             Protection Act, 1986.

 

Present:                Sh.S.K.Dharnia, counsel  for the complainant.

                             Sh.Yogesh Gupta, counsel for OPs.                    

 

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

1.                          Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased 4 packets having 450 gram each of the SP-7172 BT-Cotton cotton seeds from Op No.1 worth Rs.2960/- vide invoice No.10303 dated 29.03.2018; that the complainant had sown the above said seeds in his 14 kanal 13 marla of land by following all the instructions of Ops regarding watering and putting manure etc.; that after some day of plantation of cotton seeds the complainant noticed that the standing cotton crop was not up to the expectations, therefore, he moved an application to Agriculture Department, Fatehabad whereupon  the inspection was carried out at the fields of the complainant on 09.10.2018 in the presence of the Ops and the inspecting team  opined the loss upto 50 % to 55 %; that the complainant had been able to get only 7 quintal cotton crop instead of 29 quintal 30 kilogram and it all happened due to supplying of sub-standard seeds by the Ops; that the complainant requested the Ops to make the loss good but they did not pay any heed to his requests. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          On notice, Ops appeared and contested the present complaint by filing their separate relies.  Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that there is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op because it has sold the seeds in sealed condition being only a dealer; that neither the agriculture department nor the complainant himself had issued any notice either verbally or in writing to the replying OP before inspecting the field of the complainant or before submitting the report regarding the losses allegedly suffered by the compliant; that the requisite procedure under Section 13 (1) (c) of CP Act, has not been complied with; that the replying Op has never received any complaint with regard to quality as well as germination of seed; that in the said report it is nowhere mentioned that the less germination was on account of defective seed because good crop and proper germination of seeds always dependent upon not only the quality of the seeds but also depends upon so many other factors like quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation besides other methods; that the present complaint has been filed on concealing the material facts from this Commission. Other allegations levelled in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.                          OP No.2 in its reply has taken more or less the same grounds as taken by Op No.1 in its reply. However, it has been submitted that  there is no lat test report to show that the alleged seeds were defective and the complainant has even not moved any application for getting the sample tested through any approved lab; that the seeds are always manufactured by companies by batch process and each batch contains quintals of seeds; that numerous other farmers in the country have purchased the seeds of same batch but none of them have never complained about the quality of the seeds; that these type of products are allowed for the sale only after they pass the strict quality control analysis procedure and found according to the specification; that the complainant has not disclosed about the method of application of alleged product; that the complainant had sown the seeds on 12.05.2018 whereas the inspection took place on 09.10.2018 after five months of sowing the seeds and during this period the crop might have been infected by any disease and suitable steps might not have taken by the complainant. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissed of the complaint has been made.

4.                          The complainant in support of his complaint has placed on record his affidavit Annexure C1 alongwith affidavit of Savitri Devi Annexure C2, joint affidavit of Banwari Lal, Partap Singh, Ram Kumar, Smt.Sajna, Rohtash, Krishna, Rai Singh and Gopi Ram as Annexure C3, affidavit of Sajjan Singh Annexure C4 and Subash Annexure C5 besides documents Annexure C6 to Annexure C11 and thereafter, evidence was closed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops have tendered, in evidence, affidavit of Sh.Kewal Arora, proprietor/OP No.1 as Annexure RW1/A, affidavit of  Ajay Annexure R1/2, affidavit of Chander Bhan Annexure R1/5, Affidavit of Vinod Annexure R1/8, affidavit of Ram Kishan Annexure R1/11, affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Sehgal, Senior Regional Manager Annexure RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1, Annexure R1/3, Annexure R1/4, Annexure R1/6, Annexure R1/7, Annexure R1/9, Annexure R1/10, Annexure R1/12, Annexure R1/13, Annexure R2/1 to Annexure R2/6 and thereafter the evidence of Ops was closed.

5.                          We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

6.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased cotton seeds from Op No.1 vide invoice dated 29.03.2018 (Annexure C6) but when the crop did not grow as per his expectations, he lodged his complaint with the concerned department and thereafter, his land was inspected by the officials who in their joint report had assessed the probable loss upto 50-55 % to the farmer. It has been further argued that the loss was occurred due to inferior quality of seeds provided and sold by Ops.

7.                          On the other hand learned counsels for the Ops have argued that the seeds in question were of good quality and no other farmer except the complainant of the vicinity has ever lodged any kind of complaint with regard to quality of the seeds. It has been further argued that germination of the seed is the result of several natural phenomenon and human effort, therefore, without any expert report it cannot be said that the seeds were of inferior quality.  Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

8.                          The Inspection report Annexure C9 was prepared after inspection of the field of the complainant and this document is most significant and material document for disposal of controversy involved in the complaint in hand as the complainant is mainly relying upon the same to prove his claim.  The Committee of the Agriculture Department, vide inspection report Ex.C2, has given the specific finding that the height of the plants were 2.5 to 3 feet with average fruits of 16 which were not only small in size but also not grown properly. The Committee also opined that due to dearth in the quality of the cotton crops the farmer would suffer 50-55 % financial loss. Perusal of this very report reveals that the Committee consisting of three officers and there is nothing on the case file to show that the said committee was having partial interest against any of the parties. Moreover, the members of the team of experts are officers of the Government have no interest involved in the matter.  Therefore, their report cannot be brushed aside.  

9.                          Undisputedly, there is no report of lab qua the quality of the seed has been placed on the case file by any of the parties but usually a farmer purchases the quantity of seeds, insecticide or herbicide which is required by him for sowing or spraying in his fields and it is not expected from a farmer to conserve certain quantity of seed for getting the same tested in the lab to comply with the above said provisions. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant on this ground. Rather it was the duty of the Ops to preserve the seeds in the shape of sample for getting it tested from laboratory, in case, if any kind of complaint is lodged by any farmer.  Moreover, the Ops have also failed to produce on file any certify report with regard to purity as well as germination of the seeds allegedly sold to the complainant. Therefore, at this stage, we have no hitch to reach at conclusion that the Ops are responsible for selling poor/missed quality seeds to the complainant whereby he has suffered huge loss.

10.                        The Ops have specifically raised a plea that the seeds in question were sold to numerous farmers of the country but till today they have not received any compliant with regard to quality of the seeds from any farmer and even number of farmers have got bumper crop and they were quite satisfied with the quality of the seeds of same batch No.2476800005 which were allegedly purchased by the complainant. In support of their plea they drew the attention of this Commission towards the affidavits of various farmers which are placed on the case file as Annexure R1/2, Annexure R1/5, Annexure R1/8 and Annexure R1/11.

11.                        As per the complainant he had sown the alleged seeds in his land situated at village Kukaranwali Tehsil & District Fatehabad which was further inspected by the concerned officials of Agriculture Department when he did not get the expected yield (Annexure C9). However, perusal of the affidavits Annexure R1/2, Annexure R1/5, Annexure R1/8 and Annexure R1/11 filed by Sh.Ajay son of Shri Anoop Singh r/o village Bigher,  Chander Ban son of Shri Tarma Chand r/o village Fatehabad, Sh.Vinod son of Subash Chander r/o village Khajuri Jati and Sh.Ram Kishan son of Nand Ram r/o village Khajuri Jati  reveals that they all belong to different villages and further are not supported by any revenue documents, therefore, these affidavits are not tenable and cannot be relied upon.

12.                        Now coming to the point of compensation, the complainant has claimed that he has suffered a huge loss of Rs. 1,33,800/- on not getting the excepted cotton crop of 29 quintal 30 kilograms one acre because he has received only 7 quintals of cotton crop from one acre. In the year 2017-18 the government while insuring the cotton crop in the area of Fatehabad has assessed the sum assured of Rs.69,000/- per hectare which comes Rs.27935/- per acre. As per the report of Agriculture Department there would be loss of 50 % to 55 % yield to the complainant in 1.83 acre of land. Therefore, we presume the average loss up to 52 % to the complainant in 1.83 acre of land.

13.                        Taking into consideration, all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we reached at a conclusion that if the complainant had been able to receive full amount of crop in one acre then he might have received Rs. 27935/-.  As per the inspection report, the complainant has suffered 50%-55% loss in one acre of cotton crop.  Accordingly, we allow the present compliant and the OPs are directed to make a payment of Rs. 26582/- (52 % loss in 1.83 acres of land) alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum form the date of complaint till its realization.  The Ops are further directed to make a payment of Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges. This order be complied with, jointly and severally, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the rate of interest will be charged @ 9% per annum for the default period. 

14.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                           Dated: 19.07.2023

 

                  

 

                                                                                     

      (K.S.Nirania)                 (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                           Member                              Member                              President