BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint No. 57 of 2018
Date of Institution : 07.02.2018
Date of Decision : 21.08.2019
Rajbir Singh son of Hari Singh Saharan, resident of Kharian, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. M/S Fafana Agro Agencies, 58 CC III, Janta Bhawan Road opposite Choudhary Nursing Home, Sirsa through its proprietor.
2. M.D. U.S. Agri Seeds Seed Works, International Pvt. Limited Survey No.530/A Gowdavally village Vedchat Malkajgiri, Telangana- 501403.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Ramesh Sheoran, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S.Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant had purchased eight packets of seed make US 51 Super Seed from opposite party no.1 for narma crop for sowing in his four acres of land for a total sum of Rs.6400/- vide invoice No.422 dated 10.4.2017 after every type of assurances of quality of seed given by op no.1 and op no.1 also assured that this seed will give produce of 35 mounds per acre. That after sowing the said seeds, the complainant followed the instructions of ops but inspite of it narma crop of complainant became defective and could not be germinated. The crop was grown up to the height of 3.5’- 4’ and also the flowers of narma crop also could not be germinated properly and complainant has suffered loss of crop of four acres of land. The complainant has received only four mounds of crop per acre and remaining crop was badly damaged and in this manner he has suffered loss of 31 mounds per acre. That the complainant moved an application to Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa upon which Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Sirsa visited the fields of the complainant and inspected the crop minutely and found that height of plants were 3-5’ – 4’ and flowers were also not germinated properly and submitted his report to Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa who has supplied the copy of report to the complainant vide memo No.9924 dated 17.11.2017. It is further averred that loss assessed for the above said four acres of land comes to be Rs.2,35,200/- and further he has suffered loss of Rs.5000/- per acre for cultivation of land and Rs.2000/- per acre for fertilizer etc. and total loss comes to Rs.2,63,200/-. The complainant approached and requested the ops to pay suitable compensation to the complainant alongwith other benefits but all in vain and finally they have refused to admit his claim. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed reply taking certain preliminary objections that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties because the cotton seed in question was himself demanded by complainant and never suggested by answering op and that when he came to shop of answering op, he was not having stock of above variety of the seed, so keeping in view of the demand of his valuable customer, the answering op purchased the seed from M/s Kalra Traders, Sirsa vide bill No.115 dated 10.4.2017 but complainant has not impleaded M/s Kalra Traders as party, that answering op had sold cotton seed in question in sealed packet as received from M/s Kalra Traders and as such it cannot be held responsible in any manner and that entire process of getting good crops depends upon the certain factors viz. proper preparation of the field, using of best quality of fertilizer, use of pest and disease controlling medicines, proper irrigation, climate and seasonal conditions including proper rainfall at the relevant time. It is further submitted that Officers of Agriculture Department in their report disclosed the reason behind less growth of cotton plants i.e. less germination of cotton flower and height of plant due to shortage of rain in that year. The answering op also sold seed of same lot and batch number to other farmers but not even a single complaint except present one was ever received regarding inferior quality of said seed and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated, the contents of the complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed separate reply taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that no defect in the seed is proved. In the spot inspection report, the inspecting team have not mentioned the killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land, which was inspected by the officers of Agriculture Department and that they have not given any finding that the alleged loss has been suffered by complainant due to quality of seed. From the report, it is no where clarified that the inspection was done on the land in which complainant used the seed. It is further submitted that alleged inspection report prepared by the officials of the agriculture department is not in accordance to the letter memo no.52-70/TA/SS0 dated 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 the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act, as the complainant has not furnished the report of any expert/ lab. test report about the quality of the seeds. The answering op manufacturers, supplies and markets high quality and high standard seeds and enjoys high respect and reputation for the seeds produced by it. The yield from the seeds depends upon several factors. The answering op was not given any notice of alleged inspection nor was joined at the time of inspection. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved on record that complainant purchased Narma seed from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.6400/- which he had sown in his four acres of land and it was assured that said seed will give produce of 35 mounds per acre , but however, the narma crop of complainant became defective and could not be germinated. The crop was grown up to height of 3.5/4 feet and plants of the crop could not be germinated properly. The application was moved to the agriculture department and officers of the agriculture department inspected the field of complainant who also reported about loss of crop of complainant. The complainant is entitled for compensation as prayed for and he has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Shri Ram Bioseed Genetics India Ltd. & anr. vs. Badri Prasad & Ors. III (2017) CPJ 225 (NC).
7. On the other hand, Sh. H.S. Raghav, learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that complainant has failed to prove that seed purchased by complainant from op no.1 was defective, sub standard and mis-branded. The complainant has not mentioned the killa numbers of the land in which seed was sown. The report of agriculture department is defective and not trustworthy. The officers of agricultural department who inspected the land at the instance of complainant were also not aware about the kills numbers of the land which they had inspected nor they gave any intimation to the ops prior to their visit at the spot. No sample of the seed was taken and sent to the analysis laboratory in order to get the report of defective seed. The complainant has failed to lead cogent and convincing evidence to prove his allegations in the complaint. The complainant is not owner of the land which fact is evident from the copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and khasra girdawari which has been placed on record.
8. Learned counsel for op no.2 has also contended that it has been reported by the officers of the agricultural department that reason for short height of the plants of the cotton crop and less flowers was due to shortage of rain fall. The op no.2 maintains high standard and quality of their seeds which are manufactured by op no.2 and are marketed at large is very good and there has been no complaint against the product of op no.2.
9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the case file as well as judgment relied upon by learned counsel for complainant carefully.
10. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.PW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also tendered invoice dated 10.4.2017 Ex.C1, copy of pamphlet Ex.C2, copy of letter bearing Memo No.9924 dated 17.11.2017 Ex.C3, inspection report Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5, Ex.C6, copy of legal notice Ex.C7, reply to legal notice Ex.C8, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C9, khasra girdawari Ex.C10, affidavit of Chhatarpal, Gomti and Kamla Ex.C11, copies of adhar cards Ex.C12, Ex.C13, bills Ex.C14, Ex.C15, letter of office of Market Commission, Sirsa regarding market rate Ex.C16 and letter dated 5.2.2018 Ex.C17. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Narender Kumar Mehta, T.M as Ex.R1, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R2 and copy of power of attorney as Ex.R3. Ld. counsel for op no.1 made a statement that reply on behalf of op no.1 be read in evidence.
11. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased eight packets of seed make US 51 super seed for narma crop from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.6400/- on 10.4.2017 vide invoice No.422. As per allegations of complainant, he had sown said seed in his field measuring four acres of land. The perusal of the complaint reveals that complainant has not mentioned the killa numbers or khasra numbers in which seed so purchased by complainant was sown. The complainant has not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that seed was sown in the land as alleged by him. Though, complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit of Sh. Chhataqrpal, Smt. Gomti and Smt. Kamla as Ex.C11 and also placed on record copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and khasra girdawari and alleged that he had taken land on lease from his above said relatives but however, this fact is silent in the complaint of the complainant, nor the complainant has mentioned as such in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. The complainant has relied upon legal notice got issued by his counsel Sh. Ramesh Sheoran, but however, perusal of this notice also reveals that complainant has not mentioned the killa and khasra numbers of the land in which he had sown crop of Narma which was allegedly damaged or was not properly germinated.
12. The complainant has relied upon report of the agriculture department Ex.C4. The perusal of report Ex.C4 reveals that after inspection it has been reported by officers of the agriculture department that growth of narma crop is less due to shortage of rain and that there is possibility of loss of five to six mounds of crop per acre. The said report does not point out any defect in the seeds in question. Neither the complainant nor officers of agriculture department had taken sample of the seed and sent to the analysis laboratory in order to get opinion of the expert that seed is defective, sub standard or misbranded. The authority relied upon by learned counsel for complainant in case titled as Shri Ram Bioseed vs. Badri Prasad & Ors. (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case it was held that Inspecting Officer of State Agriculture Department has given a categorical finding that seeds were defective which is not in the present case.
13. So, it appears from the evidence of complainant that complainant has failed to prove his allegations against the ops by leading cogent and convincing evidence. As such, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of any merit. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:21.08.2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
