BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.196 of 2015                                                                          

                                                        Date of Institution         :    05.11.2015

                                                          Date of Decision   :    20.9.2016          

1. Sandeep Singh son of Sh. Sukhdev Singh son of Sh. Roor Singh,

2. Sukhdev Singh son of Sh. Roor Singh, both residents of village Suchan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainants.

                                      Versus.

1. M/s Golden Agricultural Seeds, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa Distt. Sirsa, through its Prop/ Partner/ Auth. Person.

2. Golden Seeds Plant, Shamshabad Patti, Industrial Area, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa through its Prop/ partner/ Auth. Person.

  ...…Opposite parties.

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

Before:        SH.S.B.LOHIA ……………………..PRESIDENT

                   SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL….MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Bhupinder Khattar, Advocate for the complainants.

      Sh. Purshotam Phutela, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 2.

ORDER

                   Case of the complainants, in brief is that the complainants were in need of seed for 14 acres of agricultural land and therefore, complainant no.1 approached to the shop of op no.1 and purchased 50 Kgs. “Dhaan” seed PB-6 (1401) on 7.5.2015 and paid an amount of Rs.2750/- to op no.1. On every type of assurance of op no.1, the complainant no.1 purchased the said seed. The complainants sowed the said seed in 14 acres land but at the time of groth of the plants, they came to know that said seed was mixed with different kind of seeds due to which every plant was of different kind. The op no.1 provided duplicate seed to the complainant. The complainant no.1 immediately approached to op no.1 and narrated the said fact to him but op no.1 did not listen him. Thereafter, complainant moved an application to the Deputy Agriculture Director, Sirsa to inspect the fields of the complainants who inspected the spot and submitted report regarding loss to the complainant due to duplicate seed sold by op no.1. About 40% crop of complainants has been destroyed and they have suffered a loss of Rs.four lacs. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties but none appeared on behalf of ops despite service and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.12.2015.

3.                On 13.6.2016 the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence and the case was adjourned to 29.7.2016 for further order. It is pertinent to mention here that on that date also, Sh. Purshotam Phutela, Adv. filed an application on behalf of ops seeking permission to join the proceedings and the case was adjourned to 29.7.2016 the date already fixed. The said application was opposed on behalf of complainant by filing reply and the case remained pending for consideration on the application. However, on 22.8.2016 learned counsel for ops made a statement that ops No.1 & 2 only want to argue the case at final stage and sought permission in this regard. The application was disposed of accordingly and the case was adjourned for final arguments.

4.                It is also pertinent to mention here that opposite parties also placed on file their reply, the relevant contents of which will be read for help only if any necessity arose for the just and proper decision of the case.    

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

6.                Learned counsel for the complainants has contended that due to duplicate/ mixed seed supplied by opposite party no.1, the complainants have suffered loss of crop to the extent of 40% and thereby suffered financial loss of Rs.four lacs and prayed for acceptance of the complaint. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon authority of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Dharam Pal and sons and others vs. Som Prakash, II (2014) CPJ 703 (NC).

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has contended that complainant has failed to prove that he purchased the seed in question from op no.1 and in fact he never purchased any seed from op no.1 or any of the authorized dealer of ops. Moreover, as per own version of the complainants, they have used 50 Kgs. seed only for 14 acres of land, whereas there is specific instructions and guidelines of the company to use minimum 8 Kg. seed for one acre of land and therefore, the possibility that complainants have mixed another quality of seeds cannot be ruled out and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.                First of all, we would like to mention that in his application dated 22.9.2015 moved to the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Sirsa, copy of which has been placed on file as Ex.C2, the complainant Sukhdev Singh has mentioned that he sowed 50 Kgs. of paddy seed purchased from op no.1 in his 15 acres of agriculture land and has claimed that crop of 15 acres has been damaged whereas in the complaint the complainants have alleged that they sowed the above said seed in 14 acres of land. So there is inconsistency about sowing of seeds in total land. In this regard, there is also contradiction in the inspection report Ex.C5 wherein the Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Quality Control Inspector, Sirsa jointly have mentioned that on inspection of the field of the complainant they found that paddy seed was sown in total 14 acres of land at three places i.e. 9 acres on both sides of road and 5 acres near the dhani and the situation was similar in all the three sides of the fields. Then in the subsequent lines of the report, they have mentioned that in total 15 acres of land, some plants were having length of more than 1.5/ 2 feet from the main plants and size of leafs was also big and the size of the grain (Dana) in the balis was very short and same was wild rice and percentage of these types of plants was 6-7%. It is further mentioned in the report that in this way if the plants of these types are got removed in 15 acres of land, then there will be loss of labour charges and there is possibility of loss to the quality of main crop due to mixture. The report does not reveal anything about quality of seed.

9.                Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002  issued to all the Deputy Director in the State in which it is directed by the Director Agriculture that fields of complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kendra and report will be submitted. The intent of this letter is that the fields will be inspected by a committee including the representative of concerned seed agency and it is only in his presence that the report will be submitted. In the present case, there is nothing on record that any intimation to the representative of the opposite parties was given either by the complainants or by the inspecting team and as such, the report cannot be said to be valid one.

10.              So, complainants have failed to prove their case from all angles. Accordingly the complaint of the complainants is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated:20.9.2016.                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                              Member.                          Redressal Forum, Sirsa.