BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 313 of 2016
Date of Institution : 8.12.2016
Date of Decision : 19.12.2017.
Om Parkash (now deceased) son of Sh. Basti Ram through his legal heirs:
(i) Krishna widow (ii) Poonam daughter, (iii) Akshey son of deceased Om Parkash.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Jyani Beej Bhandar, Near Goga Ji Mandir, Zamindara Market, Jamal, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its proprietor.
2. Super Seeds (P) Ltd., Regd. Off. 8th KM Stone, Barwala Road, Talwandi Rana, Hisar- 125001, through its Director/ authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.S. Bhakar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. J.D. Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Initially, complainant Om Parkash filed the present complaint against the opposite parties and after his death his above said legal heirs have been impleaded in this case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist and owns and possess land measuring 97 kanal 14 marlas being 2/3 share of land measuring 146 kanal 11 marlas comprising in Khewat No.78, Khatuni No.162, Kittas 24, situated within the revenue estate of village Bakrianwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and mutation no.1901. That the complainant in order to sow cotton crop in his agricultural land, purchased 9 Kgs. of cotton seed variety Shraddha Desi cotton seed bearing lot No.SS1616902, label No.14543336787 for Rs.2700/- from opposite party no.1 vide cash memo No.2367 dated 21.3.2016 and the said seed is manufactured by op no.2. At the time of selling this seeds, the op no.1 had assured the complainant that these seeds are of very high quality and that the complainant will get good crop. It is further averred that complainant sowed the seed in his above said eight acres agricultural land and also provided the requisite quantity of water, fertilizers etc. as required by the crop as per specification. But after the maturity of plants, the cotton plants attained the height of 6 to 8 feet and there were very less flowers/tindas on the plants grown. The complainant on noticing the above situation of the plants approached the op no.1 and apprised him of the same and that there will not be sufficient crop from the seeds and requested the op no.1 to inspect the field and to pay him adequate amount as compensation but the op no.1 refused for the same. It is further averred that on 13.10.2016, the complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa and requested to inspect his field and to make a report about the loss suffered by him whereupon the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and a specialist of the agriculture department jointly inspected the field of the complainant on 20.10.2016 and gave their joint report on 15.11.2016 that due to less flowers/ tindas there is a loss of 70 to 75% to the yield. It is further averred that complainant incurred a total sum of Rs.1,66,220/- on purchase of pesticides, fertilizers, ploughing of field by tractor, sowing seeds and spray expenses. That the complainant in normal course of nature was expecting 12 quintals per acre crop from the above seed but there was only three quintals yield from the above said crop grown in eight acres of land. The complainant was to get yield of Rs.4,32,000/- at the rate of Rs.4500/- per quintal from above said eight acres of land but he got the yield of only Rs.13,500/- and thus, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.4,18,500/- on account of less crop and the complainant is entitled to get the said amount from the ops alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as no defect in the seed is proved in the present complaint. The alleged inspection report prepared by the officials of the Agriculture Department is not in accordance to the letter memo No.52-70/TA (SS) dated PKL the 3.1.2002, issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana and that complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that complainant has concealed and suppressed the material facts from this Forum and that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. It is further submitted that the variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed, but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moister content at the sowing time and soil physical condition. These principles are applicable to the case in hand and the complainant has not stated anything about these things; that complaint is bad for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant has not furnished the report of any expert/ lab. test report about the quality of the seeds and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that answering op had purchased these seeds from the manufacturer i.e. op no.2 and sold the seed to the complainant as per desire of the complainant in duly packed and sealed seed packets in the same condition in which the same were received by op no.1. It is further submitted that it is not clear in which killa number which quality of seed was sown and what was the kind of soil. The complainant did not report any alleged defect to the answering op. The answering op has no knowledge and notice of alleged spot inspection of the field of the complainant by the officers of Agriculture Department, as the answering op was not served with any notice of spot inspection nor were joined/ associated in the alleged spot inspection. In the alleged inspection report, no defect in the seed has been attributed, rather it is reported that the crop was attached with the spotted caterpillars and moreover, there is no mention of square and killa numbers wherein the alleged inspection was conducted. So, the alleged inspection report cannot be related to the field of the complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
4. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and that complaint is barred by the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum because agriculturist can no longer be treated as different from industry and commerce and the purchase of seed falls under the commercial purpose and that this Forum has no jurisdiction because the issue relating to the quality of seeds are governed by the provisions contained in the Seeds Act and any complaint about the sale or supply of defective seeds can be filed only under the Seeds Act and not under the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it is submitted that as per complaint, the complainant was having eight acres of land and he purchased 9 Kg of seed to sow in eight acres of land. The basic requirement to sow per acre is minimum 5 Kg. of seed and the complainant was required to sow 40 Kg. of seed for proper yield. The report of the Agriculture Officer, Sirsa reveals that yield of the crop was proper but the same was effected by the insects and he did not mention in his report that the seed was of inferior quality. It is further submitted that during inspection, the answering op was not summoned, hence the report is one sided and is not reliable. The life span of the above said seed is 145-150 days and the seed was sowed on 25.3.2016 and the inspection was done by the Deputy Agriculture Officer on 20.10.2016 after 209 days i.e. after 59 days of the life span. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
5. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Ram Singh Lamberdar of village Ex.CW1/B, affidavit of Mahinder Ex.CW1/C, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C1, copy of mutation Ex.C2, bill Ex.C3, packet Ex.C4, copy of application dated 13.10.2016 Ex.C5, copy of letter dated 15.11.2016 Ex.C6, copy of inspection report Ex.C7, bills Ex.C8 to Ex.C13 and receipts Ex.C14 to Ex.C16. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Naresh Garg, Director Ex.R1, minutes of the board meeting Ex.R2, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R3 copy of notification dated 29.4.1975 Ex.R4. OP no.1 produced affidavit of Surjit Singh, proprietor Ex.R5, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R6.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove his case placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he reiterated all the facts mentioned in his complaint. He has also furnished affidavit of Ram Singh Lamberdar as Ex.CW1/B who hase deposed as per the version of the complainant. The complainant has also placed on file copy of inspection report Ex.C7 of Agriculture department. The perusal of the said inspection report reveals that same does not pin point any defect towards the seed in question. The Officers of the agriculture department have mentioned in the report that there were less ‘tindas’ on the plants but they have not given the reason for less ‘tindas’. It is also admitted fact on record that complainant never made any efforts to get seed tested from any approved laboratory in order to get the expert’s opinion that whether the seed so allegedly purchased by him was in fact of sub standard quality and moreover he has not led any other evidence from which it could be presumed that seed purchased by the complainant was of sub standard quality. Further more, the perusal of the inspection report reveals that even inspecting team has not mentioned the killa numbers and square numbers of the land which was inspected by them. Moreover, the inspecting team did not serve any notice of their inspection to other party prior to their inspection which is mandatory requirement of law. The report further reveals that the sample of the seed was not sent for testing. Further more, it is mentioned in the inspection report that there was effect of insects on the crop. Admittedly the complainant has purchased pesticides from Joshi Trading Company as is evident from bills Ex.C8 to Ex.C12 and also purchased fertilizers from Zimidara Sales Corporation as is evident from receipt Ex.C13 and as still there was effect of insect on the crop, therefore, loss of crop may be due to inferior quality of pesticides or excessive use of pesticide on the crop. Moreover, the complainant has not been able to show that he used the adequate quantity of the seeds in question in his eight acres of the land. The authority cited by learned counsel for the complainant in case titled as Fortune Hybrid Seeds Ltd. vs. Bommala Pedda Swamy etc. RP No.3669 of 2014 decided on 28.4.2015 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the present case the Agriculture Officers have mentioned in their report that there was effect of insects on the crop and therefore it cannot be said that seed in question was of sub standard quality.
8. In view of the above, it appears from the evidence of complainant that complainant has failed to prove his case and there does not appear to be any deficiency in service on the part of ops. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. 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
Dated:19.12.2017. President,
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
