Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/423/2018

Ran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Dhaka Agriculture - Opp.Party(s)

J. S Bhatti

19 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

 

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

                            

                                                                Complaint No: 423 of 2018.                                                                                                          Date of Instt.:  28.11.2018.

                                                              Date of Order: 19.04.2023.

 

Ran Singh son of Bije Ram resident of village Chaubara Tehsil & District Fatehabad.    

                                                                   Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.M/s Dhaka Agriculture Store, village Mochiwali Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its proprietor/partners.

2.Shri Ram Fertilizers & Chemicals Kirti Mehal Bhawan 19, Rajender Palace, New Delhi through its proprietor/partner.

 

                                                          Opposite parties.

 

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

 

Present:                 Sh.J.S.Bhatti, counsel  for the complainant.

                             Sh.Jitender Thakker, counsel for OP No.1.                     Sh.Sukhbir Dhaka, counsel for Op No.2.                                           

 

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

1.                          The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that on 13.05.2018, the complainant had purchased cotton seeds from Op No.1 worth Rs.1480/- vide bill/invoice No.153 dated 13.05.2018;  that the complainant had sown the above said seeds in his 1.25 acre of land by following all the instructions of Ops including the use of DAP, urea and spray etc.; that 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 11.10.2018 and the inspecting team  opined the loss upto 55 % to 60 %; that thereafter the officials of the agriculture department visited Op No.1 but there was no stock available,  therefore, the same could not be taken and the Op No.1 had intentionally destroyed the remaining stock; that the average cotton crops in the area is 10 quintals for per acre but the complainant had been able to get only 2 quintals and it all happened due to providing of inferior quality of cotton seeds by Op No.1;  that the complainant requested the Ops to make the loss good but they did not pay any heed to his requests; that the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account loss of cotton crop alonghwith Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, humiliation  and litigation expenses. Any other relief, at the discretion of this Commission, has also been made.

2.                          On notice, Ops appeared and contested the present complaint by filing their separate relies.  Op No.1 in its reply has taken many preliminary objections such as complaint is false and frivolous, concealment of material facts and cause of action etc. It has been submitted that the khriff crop like any other crops depends apart from quality of seeds, upon agro-climatic condition, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients and effective of fertilizers as seed itself cannot give a good crop;  that there is no expert report on the case and the present complaint is pre-mature; that the answering Op had purchased the said seed from M/s New Mehta Beej Bhandar, Anaj Mandi manufactured by Shri Ram Fertilizers; that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying OP as it had sold the same in sealed and same packet as it was received. 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 submitted that Op No.1 is distributor manufactured by the replying OP which is a reputed company in agricultural business; that replying Op deals in appropriate variety of seeds and it introduce the same after approval and proper permission given by the government; that the present complaint is abuse of law and has been filed just to black mail the replying Op as there is no expert report on the case file;  that germination of seeds is the result of several natural phenomenon and human effort; that the performance of cotton seeds is quite good and almost every farmer prefers it in that vicinity; that the replying Op has no control over the use of said seeds after the sale; that the seeds were sold to many farmer and no one has yet complained except the present complainant; that the report of agriculture department is not a credible piece of evidence as no opportunity of being heard was given to Ops at the time of alleged inspection. 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 Ex.CW1/A  alongwith documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and thereafter, evidence was closed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops have tendered, in evidence, affidavit of Sh.Naveen Kumar son of Mahender Singh Ex.R2, affidavit of Sh.Rohtash son of Sant Lal as Ex.RW1/A. Documents Annexure R1 to R5 have also been placed on case file 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 13.05.2018 (Ex.C1) 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 55-60 % 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 Ex.C2 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 22-23 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 get fewer rates in the market and there would be 55-60 % 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.                        Now coming to the point of compensation, the complainant has claimed that he has suffered a huge loss of Rs. 50,000/- on not getting the excepted cotton crop of 10 quintals one acre because he has received only 2 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 55 % to 60 % yield to the complainant in 1.25 % acre of land. Therefore, we presume the average loss up to 57.5 % to the complainant in 1.25 % acre of land.

11.                        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 55%-60% loss in one acre of cotton crop.  Accordingly, the OPs are directed to make a payment of Rs. 20078/- (57.5 % loss in 1.25 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 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.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record after due compliance.

12.                        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: 19.04.2023

 

                                                                                                        

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