BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 603 of 2022                                                                     

                                                         Date of Institution :        30.09.2022                                                                    

                                                        Date of Decision   :        29.08.2024.

Mandhir, aged 39 years son of Sh. Hari Ram, resident of village Anandgarh, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.

            ……Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1. Dharampal Proprietor/ authorized person M/s Dharampal & Sons, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa. Mob. 94162-56995.

2.  Director, Parkash Seeds, Satya Nagar, Vidhay Nagar, Hisar, Haryana 125001, Mob. 94664-02708.

3. Jagdish Store D-1 Tilak Bazaar, Near Bus Stand Hisar 125001 Haryana (Plot No. 53-58 Back Side Bus Stand Hisar near Back Gate of Sector 14P-II Hisar 125001, Haryana). 

..…Opposite parties.      

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

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

                SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….. MEMBER     

Present:       Complainant in person.

Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties.

ORDER

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 initially against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred as OPs) and thereafter op no.1 also got impleaded op no.3.

2.                In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is a farmer and he is having his agricultural land in village Kheowali, block Odhan, District Sirsa. That in order to sow guar crop in his six acres of land, he had purchased 10 Kgs guar seed from op no.1 and op no.1 had sold the said seed after stating that it is best quality seed and issued bill no. 3817 dated 25.05.2022. It is further averred that complainant had sown said guar seed in his six acres of land and seed was germinated but its plants were looking of different qualities because some plants were developing but some plants were looking of different quality and no fruit/ crop was coming which was to come at a definite time and it was clear that the seed is not of one quality and is not a best quality seed. That complainant told this fact to op no.1 and op no.1 asked him to contact with company but did not provide any number or its address to him. It is further averred that complainant suffered loss of guar crop in his six acres of land due to supply of inferior quality of seed and there is no possibility of any yield despite the fact that he has looked after the crop. The complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare department, Sirsa upon which on 16.09.2022 spot inspection report by concerned officials of the department was given to him on 28.09.2022 in which it is clearly mentioned that there is less spreading of plants and plants of one branch are more in numbers, the height of the plants is 4-5 feet and crop of guar is also yellowish and distance between plants to plants is about 24 inches and it seems that there is mixing of seeds of other quality which is about 65% and there is possibility of loss to the extent of 45%. It is further averred that the loss of crop is more than 45% and as such ops have caused unnecessary harassment and financial loss to the complainant by supplying inferior and mixed quality of seed. Hence, this complaint seeking compensation of the amount of Rs. four lacs from ops.

3.                On notice, ops appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is bad for non compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant has not furnished report of any expert or laboratory regarding the quality of the seeds; that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the inspection report cannot be relied upon because the inspection team did not consist of the representative of the seed agency as per the guidelines issued by the Director, Agriculture, Haryana bearing No. 52-70/TA (SS) dated 03.01.2002 and alleged inspection had been conducted in a mechanical way and report given is based on visual condition of the crop and no scientific, technical, analytical methods had been applied to determine the quality of the seed. The said inspection report does not contain any identification of the land like killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land which were allegedly inspected by the team. It is not mentioned in the report that inspection was done on the land where the complainant had sown the seed purchased from op no.1. No notice of inspection was given to the producer of seed or to the sale agency by inspecting team and it is not mentioned in the inspection report that seed was defective and that report does not say anything about the variety of Guar seed sown and the variety of alleged mixture and that report also does not pin point the reasons for alleged anticipated loss of yield, therefore, the inspection report is no report in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that op no.2 being the manufacturer and op no.3 being distributor of op no.1 company sold and supplied the seeds in question to the op no.1 which is the retailer seller of the seeds in the same packed and sealed condition in which the same was received from the manufacturing company/ op no.1. The variation in the conditions of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed but it may be due to various other factors including water quality used for irrigation, sowing methodology, moister content at the sowing time, soil physical condition spread of any disease. These principles are applicable to the case in hand and complainant has not stated anything about these things in the present complaint. It is further submitted that it was necessary on the part of complainant to adopt all the agricultural operations/ practices and complainant himself is responsible for adopting wrong cultivation practice, as such complaint cannot proceed any further and is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that complainant has not clarified about the above aspects in his complaint, which shows that he did not adopt the right procedure for sowing the seeds. That as per standard rate 5-6 kgs of seed is required per acre. In the case in hand, the complainant purchased 10 Kgs. of HG-365 quality of guar seed for sowing the same in his six acres of land, which required at least 50-60 Kgs of seed. In this manner, the complainant sowed very less quantity of seed in his land and thus he cannot blame the ops for less yield. The said seeds takens 85-100 days for ripening. Other preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, estoppal, no consumer dispute, jurisdiction are also taken. On merits, while reiterating the pleas of preliminary objections, it is also submitted that complainant purchased the seed on 25.05.2022, which was immediately sowed by him, whereas the inspection of the field of complainant was allegedly conducted on 16.09.2022 i.e. after about 110 days and till that time, the crop would have been harvested. There could be no crop standing in the land of complainant on 16.09.2022 and therefore, the said inspection report appears to be procured one and does not inspire any truth in it. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.                The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents i.e. bill Ex.C1, copy of inspection report Ex.C2, Khasra Girdawari Ex.C3 and letter dated 28.09.2022 Ex.C4.

5.                On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Gopal Krishan, Proprietor of op no.1 as Ex. RW/1/A, copy of letter dated 03.01.2002 Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar Proprietor of op no.2 Ex. RW2/B and affidavit of Sh. Kunal Proprietor of op no.3 as Ex. RW3/C.

6.                We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for the ops and have gone through the case file.

7.                Admittedly on 25.05.2022 the complainant had purchased 10 Kgs. of guar seed from op no.1 for an amount of Rs.1100/- for his six acres of agricultural land. According to complainant, op no.1 had supplied inferior and mixed quality of guar seed to him due to which he suffered loss of yield of more than 45% and has placed on file copy of inspection report Ex.C2. However, according to ops, seed used by complainant for his six acres of land was not sufficient because the recommended quantity is 50-60 Kgs of seed for six acres of land. In the inspection report Ex.C2, it is mentioned that there is possibility that seed was of mixed quality and the percentage of mixed quality of seed is sixty five percent, so possibility that complainant himself purchased another seed and sowed with above said seed cannot be ruled out as above said guar seed purchased by complainant from op no.1 was not sufficient for six acres of land. So, it is proved on record that complainant purchased very less quantity of seed in question for his six acres of land. 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.C2, 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. Further more, no Scientist from any of above said institutions was associated in the inspection team. So, the inspection report itself is defective. Further more, the allegation made by complainant is based only on visual inspection and conjecture and there is no material on record to show that sample of seed/ crop was ever sent to any laboratory for any scientific testing.  So, it cannot be said at all that the seed in question of the ops was of substandard, inferior and was of mixed quality. Moreover, in the inspection report it is only mentioned that there is possibility of loss of 45% of yield and the complainant has also failed to prove on record that what was the exact loss of yield to him as he has not placed on file any material to prove that how many yield was received by him. 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. So, the complainant has failed to prove on record that ops have supplied misbranded and substandard quality of the seeds to him.

8.                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                              President,

Dated: 29.08.2024.                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                   Redressal Commission, Sirsa.