BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.95 of 2014
Date of Institution : 23.7.2014
Date of Decision : 29.9.2016
Dharam Chand aged 43 years son of Sh. Rang Lal son of Sh. Gela Ram, resident of village Dhani 400 Lahna, Jhorarnali, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Kalra Traders, Jagdev Singh Chowk, Janta Bhawan Road Sirsa, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa, through its Proprietor, Sirsa.
2. Ajeet Seeds Ltd., Gut no.233, Chitagaon Aurangabad 431105 (M.S.) India, through its Managing Director Aurangabad.
...…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.K.L.Tantia. Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Deepak Goyal, Advocate for Opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant purchased two packets of cotton seeds Ajeet 177 BG II vide bill No.1504 dated 18.5.2013 from opposite party no.1 who is renounced dealer of seeds manufactured and marketed by op no.2 and sowed the same in one acre land in year 2013 as per instructions mentioned on packet and spent huge amount. The crop of Narma was not good in growing, flowering and tinde and whole crop was destroyed due to defective quality of seed and complainant informed the op no.1 in this regard and to pay compensation to him but op no.3 did not bother the genuine request of complainant. Then complainant immediately reported the matter to the Agricultural Authority, Sirsa on 13.9.2013 and requested to inspect the damaged crop so that the cause of damage can be ascertained. Consequently, the Agricultural Authority, Sirsa visited the fields of complainant on 16.9.2013 and found that Narma crop plants are very short and growth of plants, flowers and tinde was not proper and growing was not complete due to defective quality of seeds whereas the crop of other fields was good. According to the report of Sub Divisional Agricultural Director, Sirsa, the cotton crop was badly damaged to the extent of 70% on account of defective quality of seeds. The complainant is a progressive farmer and has taken all care about the crop but could not get the crop and complainant is entitled to compensation from the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement asserting therein that answering op sold the seed to various agriculturists of the area, but not even a single complaint except the present one was ever received regarding alleged inferior quality of seed. The seed marketed by manufacturing company was of high quality. The report is vague and the alleged inspecting team never joined answering op at the time of alleged inspection and as such the alleged inspection report is not binding upon him. Moreover, the persons of inspecting team were not competent to determine the quality of seeds. Even the inspecting team has not given any report regarding inferior quality of the seed. On perusal of report dated 25.9.2013, it is evident that field of complainant was effected with Patta Marod (leaf curl) disease and as per scientific research, the curl leaf disease spreads on crops due to white bee and not due to inferior quality of seeds. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement asserting that there is not even a single word in the report about quality of seeds. The proper growth, flowering and yield depend on proper agricultural operations. However, the report clearly illustrates that loss was due to attack of whiteflies and cotton leaf curl virus on the crop. The BT cotton seeds produced by answering op undergo several parameter tests in their own Quality Control Laboratory which is recognized by the appropriate authority. Remaining contents have been denied.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Satpal Ex.CW1/B and documents Ex.C1 to C8. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to R11, affidavit Ex.R12 and documents Ex.R13 and Ex.R14.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsels for the parties.
6. The main dispute in this complaint is that cotton seed sold by the respondents was defective and due to that seed, the crop of the complainant has been affected and he suffered losses. The complainant case depends upon the report Ex.C7 of the Agriculture department. We carefully have gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. No sample of seed was sent to the Lab. for analysis. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officials of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officials of the Agriculture department. From report Ex.C7 the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. Holding these views we have relied upon the observation of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in a case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 in which it was clearly observed by their Lordship that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant simply on the basis of a self serving affidavit when there is no evidence with respect to the less germination and it can be said that the complainant had really suffered any loss due to defective seed.
7. 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 inspection team should be consisting with total four members, two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. In this report, it is mentioned that this report was prepared only by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer and Agriculture Development Officer, Bansuthar and is bearing signatures of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer only. This report is not conclusive and the same is defective one. Even, no notice was issued to Ops for spot verification. Moreover, report of Agriculture Department shows that the crop was affected with disease of leaf curl. The said report Ex.C7 does not pin point any defect towards the seed in question and it is mentioned in the report that damage to 70% crop was due to the above said disease and due to lack of resistance power. So, the authorities cited by learned counsel for the complainant in cases titled as Rajasthan State Seeds Corp. ltd. Vs. Chaman Lal and Anr. in Appeal Cse No.630 of 2001 decided on 22.5.2007, E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. Vs. Gourishankar & Anr. Revision Petition No.2257 of 2004 decided on 26.9.2006 (NC), are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in those cases, official of Agricultural Devepartment had confirmed after spot inspection that seeds were of substandard but this is not so in the present case as mentioned above.
8. So, complainant has failed to prove his case from all angles and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law.
9. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant 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:29.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
