Haryana

Jind

CC/145/2013

Shiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Khajan Chand - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Mukesh Chauhan

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.    
                    Complaint Case No.145 of 2013
                          Date of Institution:      5.7.2013
                          Date of  Decision:    24.10.2016
Shiv Kumar son of  Balwant r/o village Baroli Tehsil & Distt. Jind.

                                             ….Complainant.
                Versus
M/s Khajan Chand  Naveen Kumar Anaj Mandi Jind through its Proprietor Naveen Kumar.
M/s Dalamwala Traders, Anaj Mandi Gate, Jind (Distributer of Stamp Weedicide).
M/s Pioneer Pesticide (P) Ltd. Industrial Growth Centre Samba, Jammu and Kashmir through its Managing Director/authorized Signatory.
M/s Sushil Traders old Anaj Mandi, Jind.

          …. Opposite parties.

                      Complaint under section 12 of
          the Consumer Protection Act.
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA PRESIDENT.
           SMT. BIMLA SHEOKAND, MEMBER.
           SH.  M.K. KHURANA, MEMBER.

Present: Sh. Mukesh Chauhan Advocate, counsel for complainant.
        Sh. Lokender Kumar Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 to 3.
        Opposite Party No.4 ex-parte.

ORDER
              Brief facts of the  present complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and had purchased  two bags of  Shree Ram BG-II-6488 cotton seed in a sum of Rs.1800/- vide bill No.5370 dated 6.5.2013 from OP No.1  who  assured the complainant that there  is no need  to enter in his fields for about 70 days as there will be no Kharpatwar in his field & if there will be any Kharpatwar in his field, then spray of Stamp 30%(pre-Emergence Herbicide) Kharpatwar Nashak will destroy the same and thus OP No.1 also sold one packet of said Kharpatwar Nashak to complainant against payment of Rs.380/- as mentioned in the above bill. The complainant sown the above said cotton seeds in his one acre of land & spent labour charges for sowing the seed but surprised to see that cotton plants were very less rather huge Kharpatwar was present in his field, so he contacted  OP No.1  for inspection of  his field but OP No.1 advised  the complainant to do spray of Stamp Kharpatwar Nashak and  he sprayed the Stamp Kharpatwar Nashak but  there was no progress and no Kharpatwar was destroyed due to spray and thus it  was proved that the said cotton seed & Stamp Kharpatwar Nashak  sold by OP No.1 was of inferior quality and was not branded one. The complainant  suffered huge losses due to inferior quality of cotton seeds & Stamp Kharpatwar Nashak sold by OP No.1. The complainant approached  the office of Agriculture Department, Jind on 13.6.2013 whereby the field of complainant was inspected by Team of the Agriculture Department who gave their report in this concern. Deficiency in service on the part of OPs has been alleged in the complaint and in the end, it has been prayed that the complaint may kindly be accepted and OPs  may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  jointly & severally as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.  
2.         Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate written versions whereas  OP No.4 did not bother to appear despite service and thus he  was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.1.2015 passed by the Forum.  OP No.1 raised preliminary objections in his reply that complainant has neither cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint. Further the complaint filed by the  complainant is not maintainable in the present  form as no any expert report has been filed by the complainant and the report, if any, of Agriculture Department is premature because the loss in yield of cotton crop, if any, can be accessed after harvesting of cotton crop. On merits, it  has been urged that  the answering OP had sold the cotton seeds & weedicide to the complainant in sealed & packed condition as were received from the different cotton seeds and pesticides dealer/distributor of the company. The complainant has not used the weedicide as per instructions written on the leaflets of the weedicide. The complainant has not filed the copy of jamabandi & girdawari on record to establish that he has cultivated and sown the cotton seeds in his field. Neither the complainant nor official of Agriculture Department ever informed to answering OP about inspection of fields of complainant  and the report, if any, prepared by the official of Agriculture Department is no report in the eyes of law since the same has been prepared by them in the absence of OP No.1.  Dismissal of complaint with cost of Rs.20,000/-  has been prayed for. 
3.        OPs No.2 &3 filed their separate written statements but the version of OPs No.2 &3 is  almost the same. OPs No.2 & 3 have urged that the effectiveness of the Stamp weedicide is fully tested & certified and same has been properly analysed by the Quality Control Manager Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. I.G.C. Phase-1, Samba (J &K) and analysis certificate of sold batch of weedicide is attached herewith.  OPs No.2&3 further contended that the complainant had not produced  J Form which was received by him from commission Agent of  Grain Market  to prove the variety of the crop, its rate and quality.  Even prior to inspection of the fields of complainant, no intimation was given to the  OPs No.2&3 either by the complainant or by Agriculture Department, which was mandatory one as per Govt. instructions. OPs have further urged that complainant had not produced any Seed test report from National Laboratory in support of his complaint.  In the present case, the mandatory provisions have not been complied with, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.2&3. Dismissal of complaint with cost of Rs.20,000/-  has been prayed for. 
4.         To prove his  contention, complainant’s counsel has tendered affidavit of complainant as Ex. C-1  alongwith documents as Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-6 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant whereas on the other hand, counsel  for the
 OPs No.1 to 3 have tendered affidavit of Khajan Chand, Proprietor as Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Naveen Kumar, authorized signatory as Ex. OP-2, affidavit of Raj Singh, authorized signatory as Ex. OP-3 alongwith documents   as Ex.  OP-4 to Ex. OP-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 to 3. 
5.           We have heard the Ld. Counsels of   the parties and perused the record placed on file. Counsel for the complainant argued that neither  the seed nor the pesticide in question purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 was  of best quality  because the yields of   crop was very less though  the seeds were sown by the complainant in his fields as per directions and instructions issued by the OPs. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the spray of Stamp pesticide was also applied in the fields by the complainant but the Kharpatwar was not destroyed and thus the growth of the plants was not up to the  mark resulting into low yield than the expectations. The Ld. Counsel for complainant relied upon the report of Agriculture Department  (Ex. C-3)  in this regard.
6.    On the other hand,  Ld. Counsel for OP No.1 argued that the seeds & the pesticide were sold to the complainant in a sealed manner and the same has not been applied as per directions & instructions of the OPs and the report of Agriculture Department (Ex.C-3) has been obtained by the complainant in collusion with the Departmental Team comprising of (1) B.A.O., Jind (2) A.D.O. Jind-I (3) A.D.O.Jind-II whereas  instructions/letter  of the Department issued vide memo No.52-70 dated 3.1.2002 by the Director of Agriculture Department Haryana ( Ex. OP-13) clearly speaks that the  fields of complainant farmers will be inspected by a  Committee comprising of two  officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed/pesticide  agency and one scientist of KGK/KVK/HAU, Hisar  & report will be submitted to the Directorate office immediately after inspection but these instructions have not been complied with by the officers of the Agriculture Department and thus the said report cannot be relied upon. The Ld. Counsel for OP No.1 further argued that mere writing in the inspection report that the OPs were informed about the date of inspection is not tenable unless proved by any document. The Ld. Counsel for OP No.2  further argued that the responding OP is a distributor of Stamp weedicide  and the said Stamp Kharpartwar Nashak was supplied to OP No.1 in sealed manner and the loss, if any, to the complainant can be assessed after harvesting of the cotton crop but no such assessment/report has been tendered by the complainant. The  Ld. Counsel of OP No.2 further argued  that the inspection of the fields of the complainant was done by the Agriculture Department  at the back of  the responding OP and thereby the report cannot be relied upon. 
7.    The Ld. Counsel for OP No.3 i.e. manufacturer of pesticide argued that the product “Stamp” is a pesticide recommended by the scientists of HAU, Hisar and the inspection report of the Agriculture Department cannot be relied upon as it was mandatory to associate the opposite party during the inspection of the fields of the complainant. To support his version, Counsel for responding OP  placed reliance on case law titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Sawroop Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014, decided on 26.11.2014 wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC New Delhi and the Hon’ble Apex court in case Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sadhu & others  II (2005) CPJ-13 SC has held that the onus to prove that there was defective seeds etc. was on the complainant. 
8.    In view of the above referred letter/instructions of Agriculture Department, Haryana & the observations made by Hon’ble Higher Courts, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove that there was any deficiency in the seeds or pesticides sold by OPs to the complainant. Further it was mandatory that the inspection team should associate one representative of OPs and one scientist of KVK, KGK or HAU wich is lacking in the present case. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Accordingly the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  
Announced: 
                                   PRESIDENT                                                                                         District Consumer Disputes
                                  Redressal Forum, Jind. 

                                    Member

                                    Member