BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no. 101/2018. Date of instt. 05.04.2018 Date of Decision: 25.02.2020
Mahender Singh son of Godhu Ram caste Jat resident of Village Thuiyan Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
- M/s. Garg Khad Bhandar, 71, New Anaj Mandi, Bhattu Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its proprietor
- M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Limited, 4th Milestone, Sirsa Road, Hisar through its Managing Director/Director.
..Respondents/OPs.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President. Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Argued by: Sh. K.K.Jangra, Advocate for complainant. Sh. Jitender Thakkar, Advocate for OP No.1. Sh. S.B. Sardana, Advocate for OP No. 2.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he purchased Cotton seeds of variety “3028” vide invoices dated 18.04.2017, 04.05.2018 and 18.05.2017 from OP No. 1 and made payment of the same in cash to him. Therefore the complainant is consumer of OP as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. It is further submitted that while selling the seeds to the complainant the OP No. 1 had assured that the seeds are of very fine quality and will give the excellent yield of cotton crop in terms of quality and quantity. It is further submitted that the above said seed was sown by him in his agriculture land situated in village Thuiyan. It is further submitted that the cotton crop was not sufficient in the above said land and as such the complainant moved an application before Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer Fatehabad and upon this the fields of the complainant was inspected by a team of Experts of Agricultural Department who after inspection of fields observed that height of the plants was 3-4 feets and there were 28-30 Tindas on an average on one plant and the plants were affected from the disease Safed Makhi and Patta Marod and there was a loss to the complainant to the tune of 30-35%. It is further submitted that the complainant had been able to get only 5 quintals of cotton crop whereas the average yield in the area is 10 quintals per acre and as such he has suffered a loss of 10 acres of yield on account of inferior quality of seeds sold to him by the Ops. The above said act on the part of OPs in selling inferior quality of seeds to the complainant amounts to deficiency in rendering service to him. The complainant has further prayed that the OP may be directed for making a payment of Rs.50,000/- on account of losses suffered by him due to inferior quality of cotton seeds sold by the Ops. The complainant has further prayed that an amount of Rs.25,000/- may be awarded as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. Hence the present complaint.
3. On being served, the Op No. 1 appeared through their counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written version wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, suppression of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.
4. In reply, on merits it is further submitted that the seeds in question sold by the Op No. 1 to the complainant were duly packed and handed over in the same condition as it was received by the OP No. 1. It is further submitted that the loss suffered by the complainant is not on account of deficiency in the seed rather the same was on account of other reasons of bad weather and use of pesticides. It is also submitted that the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the seed in question as a party and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1 in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The OP No. 2 also resisted the complaint by filing a written version wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, concealment of true & correct facts, locus standi etc. have been raised.
6. In reply, on merits it is submitted that there is no evidence on the file that the complainant had sown the seed as per instructions and precautions and had also sprayed in proper time. The complainant has also not mentioned the killa number of the land wherein the seed in question was sown. It is also denied that the Ops had given any assurances regarding the yield of the crops. It is also submitted that no notice was given by the team of Agricultural Department Haryana before inspection of the fields and the inspection was conducted in absence of the answering OP No. 2. Moreover, the inspection was not conducted by the authorized committee and as such the inspection report is not binding upon the OP No. 2. It is further submitted that the seed in question sold by the Op to the complainant was as per standard and of very good quality. In absence of the report of any approved laboratory it cannot be established that the seeds sold to the complainant by the OPs was of inferior quality. It is further submitted that the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex. CW-1/A and the documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand the learned counsel for the OP No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of OP No. 1 alongwith the documents Annexure R-4 to Annexure R-11.
8. The learned counsel for OP No. 2 tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence of the OP No. 2.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record.
10. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased seed in question from OP No. 1 and the same was manufactured by OP No. 2. At the time of selling of the seed in question it was assured by the OP No. 1 that the seed sold to him is of very fine quality and it will give an excellent yield of cotton crop in terms of quality as well as quantity. It is further the case of the complainant that he had been able to get only 5 quintals of cotton crop and whereas the yield of cotton crop in the area is 10 quintals per acre. Therefore, the complainant has suffered a loss of 10 quintals of cotton yield on account of inferior quality of seed sold by the Ops to him.
11. In support of his contention the complainant has relied upon the inspection report of the experts of Agriculture Department dated 13.10.2017 placed on record as Anneuxure C-4. We have perused the inspection report Annexure C-4. In the above said report it has been observed by the inspecting team that the height of the plants is between 3-4 feet and on an average village there are 28-30 tindas on each plant. It has been further observed that the crop has been affected by the disease Safed Makhi and CLCV. It has also been observed that there is possibility of 30-35% loss in the inspected crop. However the inspecting team vide its inspection report has nowhere stated that the loss to the cotton crop was on account of inferiority or deficiency in the seeds sown by the complainant. The inspecting team has not uttered even a single word regarding the quality of the seed of the cotton crop. It is a settled proposition of law that yield of a crop depends apart from the quality of the seeds, upon agro climatic conditions, time of sowing, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, use of pesticides and fertilizers etc. Seed by itself without any other requirement cannot give a good crop. The onus in the present case was upon the complainant to prove that the seed in question sold by the Ops to the complainant was of inferior quality. However the complainant has not placed on record any convincing, credible or authentic proof or report of laboratory to prove that the seed sold by the Ops to the complainant was of inferior quality. Reliance is placed on judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Haryana Seed Development Corporation Vs. Sadhu and Another cited CPJ 2015 (2) page 13 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that variation in the condition of crop may not be attributed to the quality of seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality, use for irrigation, long drying spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, contents at the sowing time and physical condition of the soil.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to him. The present complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order to cost. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum: Dt. 25.02.2020
(Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh) Member President DCDRF, Fatehabad.
