Haryana

Fatehabad

229/2013

Shemsher Singh S/o Ram Ji Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

m/s Jai mala seeds & yagvanti Seeds Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K.K jangra

22 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

                                                               Complaint No.:229 of 2013.                                                                                                            Date of Instt.: 20.10.2013.

                                                               Date of Order: 02.02.2015.

 

Shamsher Singh son of Ram Ji Lal resident of village Bangaon Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                   ..Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.M/s Jai Bala Ji Seeds 7-B Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad District Fatehabad through its Proprietor.

2.M/s Yaganti Seeds Private Limited 22A Teja Market Sirsa Road, Hisar.

 

                                                                   ..Opposite parties.

 

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

 

Before:                 Smt.Pushpa Mehta, Presiding Member.

                             Sh. Ranbir Singh Panghal, Member.

 

Argued by:           Sh.K.K.Jangra, counsel  for the complainant.

                             Sh.Yogesh Gupta, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                          The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that he had purchased cotton seeds Sorya BG-11 vide bill No.03 dated 08.04.2013 for a sum of Rs.4750/-. The complainant sowed the above said seeds in his land and the land of his brothers. After some days, the complainant noticed that the plants are not growing properly as the height of the plants was so high and there was less fruit on it. It is further averred that it all happened due to adulterated seeds. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to Agriculture department and the official of the Agriculture Department inspected the field.  During the inspection, it was found that there was irregular growth and dissimilarities in height and the loss was assessed to the extent of 65-70 %. The complainant has requested the OPs to make the payment of loss suffered by him but all fell on deaf ears and lastly the OPs refused to make any compensation to the complainant. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has not only suffered mental agony and harassment but also suffered financial loss which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.

3.                On notice the OPs appeared and OP No.1 contested the complaint of the complainant by filing its reply.  OP No.1 in its reply has taken several preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi concealments of material facts and maintainability etc. It is further submitted that there is collaboration of Yaaganti Seeds Pvt. Limited with Nuzibedu Seeds Ltd. regarding certification of seeds and the seed has been produced and processed with expert care and as per Seed Act. The complainant had purchased 10 packets of seeds  but the report given by the agriculture department is qua 5 packets of seeds. No record of land has been given where other five packets were sown. The report of the agricultural officials is self contradictory. Moreover, the loss as alleged in the report is due to bug of white fly damage and patta maror disease and it cannot be attributed to the quality of seeds. It is further submitted that crop apart from the seeds quality depends upon agro-climatic, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients and effective use of fertilizers etc. Besides for proper germination of seed, correct agriculture practice has to be followed and the seed by itself without the other requirements cannot give good crop.   The complainant has not placed any revenue record to show that he is in possession of the land alone and he is not competent to file the present complaint on behalf of the other co-sharers.  The complainant has not mentioned the date of sowing the seeds and date of watering etc. The OP No.1 has controverted the other allegations made in the complaint and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Lastly prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  OP No.2 adopted the reply filed by the OP No.1. In evidence the OPs have tendered affidavits and documents Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and Ex.R1 to Ex.R16.

4.                          Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the case file has been perused very carefully. 

5.                          The complainant in support of his complaint placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1 and in order to support the version of the complainant, Subhash & Krishan have filed joint affidavit Ex.C2. The complainant has also placed on file bill No.03 dated 08.04.2013as Ex.C3, application given to the DDA, Fatehabad Ex.C4, inspection report Ex.C5, report of revenue officer Ex.C6, copy of jamabandi Ex.C7 and copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C8. On perusal of the record placed on the file it is established that the complainant had purchased 10 packets of seeds from OP No.1 as mentioned in bill Ex.C3. It is also not disputed that when he did not get fruitful result then he made an application Ex.C4 to DDA, Fatehabad. From the jamabandi Ex.C7, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C8 and report of revenue officer Ex.C6 it is established that the complainant and his brothers are in possession of land bearing khasra No.13//19, 20, 14//16. The Inspection report produced on behalf of the complainant in his evidence as Ex.C5 which was prepared after inspection of the field of the complainant to know the loss of crops due to seeds in question having been purchased from OP No.1 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.  Undisputedly, the complainant has approached to agricultural department with the grievance that he has suffered a loss of crop due to sub-standard quality of seed and adulterated seeds and sought a report from the department to this effect.  Perusal of report made by the agriculture officers shows that there was financial loss to the tune of 65-70 %  but in the same it has been also mentioned that the plants were having leaf curl disease due to the bug of white fly and as per guidelines issued by  Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University the disease of leaf curl does not occur to the quality of seeds, therefore, the OPs cannot be held liable for any deficiency and the seeds sold to the complainant cannot be held as adulterated and of substandard quality. Moreover, if the report of the officials of the Agriculture Department is discarded from consideration there remains hardly any evidence on the record for the complainant to prove his case. The evidence as well as documents produced by the complainant in support of his contention are not connecting piece of evidence in order to prove that seeds in question is sole reason of damage of his crop.

6.                          Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances we find we find no merit in the complaint of the complainant and accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in the open court:

Dated: 02.02.2015                                              

                                                                   (Pushpa Mehta)                                                                                 Presiding Member

(Ranbir Singh Panghal)                         Distt.Consumer Disputes                             Member                                                  Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present :               Sh.K.K.Jangra, counsel  for the complainant.

                             Sh.Yogesh Gupta, counsel for OPs.

                                                                            

 

                             Order announced. Vide separate order of even dated, the complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open court:

Dated: 02.02.2015                                              

 

 

                   Member                                   Presiding Member,                                                                                      DCDRF, Fatehabad/