BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 41 of 2020                                                                  

                                                           Date of Institution :        22.01.2020                                                                    

                                                     Date of Decision   :        14.06.2023.

Balbir Singh aged about 40 years son of Shri Jagraj Singh, resident of village Sadewala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

            ……Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1. M/s Bhuvnesh Agro Centre, Old Bus Stand Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa through its Proprietor.

2. Raashi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 174, Satyamurti Road, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu through its authorized person.

3. Deepak Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 321, Dediyasan GIDC-2, Mehsana-2, Gujrat through its authorised person.

..…Opposite parties.      

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

BEFORE:  SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….. PRESIDENT                        

SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….. MEMBER                             

SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Preet Amar, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties.

ORDER

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2.       In  brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and is having land measuring 15 acres situated in village Sadewala, District Sirsa (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint). The op no.2 is the manufacturer of pesticides and seeds and op no.1 is the authorized dealer of op no.2. That on 04.05.2017 complainant had purchased four packets of RCH 776 batch No. 818959 and three packets of RCH 602 from op no.1 for total sum of Rs.5600/- vide bill no.443. He had also purchased five packets of 1965 vide bill no. 832 dated 10.05.2017 (manufactured by op no.3) for sowing the same in his agriculture land. It is further averred that at the time of sale of the said seeds, op no.1 assured the complainant that seed sold to him is of very good and pure quality and would give satisfactory result. That complainant sown the seeds in his agriculture land after following instructions of op no.1 but even after giving proper care and caution to the crops, he could not receive proper yield and the size of many fruits was different from the other fruits and complainant suffered loss of his crops to the tune of about Rs.2,00,000/- due to supply of lower quality/ duplicate seeds. That above said fact of loss of crops was also brought to the notice op no.1 by the complainant and he requested op no.1 to compensate for the losses suffered by him but to no effect. It is further averred that none of the ops have given any response to him. The complainant also approached to the Agriculture Department and moved an application dated 3.10.2017 to the Deputy Director Agriculture Department, Sirsa in this regard and accordingly on 13.11.2017 spot inspection was conducted by the officials of the Agriculture Department and they have also verified the loss of about 360 kgs ( 8 to 9 monds) of crops of the complainant. It is further averred that thereafter also complainant against contacted op no.1 and requested to compensate him but op no.1 kept on avoiding the requests of complainant on one false pretext or the other and later on they have flatly refused to indemnify the claim of complainant. That such act and conduct of the ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which complainant has suffered financial loss of Rs. two lacs and has also suffered unnecessary harassment. That complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops on 15.12.2017 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On notice, ops appeared. Op no.2 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as no defect in the seed is proved. In the spot inspection report, which was inspected by the officers of Agriculture Department, they have not mentioned the killas numbers and khasra numbers of the land and have not given any finding that alleged loss has been suffered by complainant due to quality of seed. From the report, it is no where clarified that inspection was done on the land in which complainant used the seed, so complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further submitted that alleged spot inspection is stated to have been conducted on 3.11.2017 when the picking up season is always over in normal course of nature. So on 13.11.2017, there would have been no crop standing at the spot. Thus, the said inspection report appears to be manipulated one. The alleged inspection report prepared by the officials of the Agriculture Department is not 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 to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana. So, the alleged spot inspection report is no report in the eyes of law and same is liable to be ignored. It is further submitted that complaint is bad for non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant has not furnished the report of any expert/ lab. test report about the quality of the seeds. Other preliminary objections regarding cause of action, suppression of true and material facts, estoppal and jurisdiction have also been taken.

4.       On merits, it is submitted that answering ops manufacture, supplies and markets high quality and high standard seeds and enjoy high respect and reputation for the seeds produced by answering ops no.2 and 3. The answering op sell and supply the seeds in duly packed and sealed packets. The complainant has not mentioned the measurement, kind of soil, irrigation facilities, moisture content in the soil, climatic conditions in the area etc. The complainant at no point of time reported any defect in the seeds to the answering op. It is further submitted that ops no.2 and 3 were not joined in the alleged spot inspection of the field of complainant and officers of Agriculture Department have not given any finding that alleged loss to the crop of complainant was caused due to quality of seeds. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

5.       Op no.3 also filed written version on the lines of op no.2. Learned counsel for ops also suffered a statement that written versions filed on behalf of ops no.2 and 3 may also be read on behalf of op no.1.   

6.       The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. as Ex. C1 to Ex. C13.

7.       On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Area Sales Manager of op no.2 as Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Marketing Officer of op no.3 as Ex.R2 and letter dated 3.1.2022 Ex.R3.

8.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

9.       According to the complainant on 04.05.2017 he had purchased four packets of cotton seed i.e. RCH 776 quality and three packets of RCH 602 from op no.1 and on 19.05.2017 he had also purchased five packets of 1965 seed manufactured by op no.3 and sown the said seeds in his six acres of land but he could not receive proper yields as size of the many fruits was different from other fruits and the seeds supplied by op no.1 was not of pure quality and it was mixed with other lower quality and as such complainant has suffered financial loss due to less yield. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop in year 2017 has also placed on file inspection report Ex.C5 from which it is evident that inspection of the field of complainant was conducted on 13.11.2017 by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa alongwith one Specialist Scientist. However, from the report Ex.C5, it is not proved on record that there was defect in the seeds of the ops rather it is mentioned in the report that there was effect of white fly on the crop of the complainant and as such there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant. As there was effect of white fly on the crop as per report Ex.C5, so it cannot be said that there was any defect in the seeds of the ops. Moreover, according to complainant himself he had purchased three different qualities of the cotton seeds from op no.1, so the fruits of each quality would have been different from each other and as such it cannot be said that ops have supplied mixed/ duplicate seeds to the complainant and it cannot be said that all the three qualities of seeds were of inferior quality. Moreover, good germination and good yield depends upon so many factors like quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer and pesticides and weather conditions. The complainant has not proved on record through any cogent and convincing evidence that complainant used proper quality of pesticides etc. for avoiding effect of insects, white fly etc. on the crop.  So, the complainant has failed to prove on record that ops have supplied misbranded and substandard quality of the seeds to him.

10.     Further as per letter dated 03.01.2002 of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula written to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the Haryana State, the fields of 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, from the inspection report Ex.C5, it is evident that no notice of the inspection was ever given to the ops and therefore, inspection was conducted in absence of the ops and only one Agriculture Officer inspected the field of complainant. So, the inspection report itself is defective. Further more, the inspection of the field of complainant was conducted on 13.11.2017 i.e. when the picking up season of the crop of cotton is almost over. So, the complainant has failed to prove on record that ops have supplied misbranded and substandard quality of the seeds to him and the reason of loss of crop of complainant may be due to the effect of white fly which was not controlled by the complainant using proper pesticides etc. The judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for complainant in case titled as H.N. Shankara Shastry Versus The Asst. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka, CA No. 2253 of 1999 decided on 06.05.2004 and Nath Seeds Ltd. and others versus The Malaprabha Neerwani Balakedara Co-operative Sangh Ltd. CA No. 548 of 1994 decided on 2.3.1994 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

11.     In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced :                            Member     Member                  President,

Dated: 14.06.2023.                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

JK