BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.45 of 2015
Date of Institution : 04.03.2015
Date of Decision : 08.02.2017
Dharam Chand, aged 43 years son of Sh. Rang Lal son of Sh. Gela Ram, resident of village Dhani 400 Lahna, Jhorarnali, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Kheti Seva Centre, 28 Janta Bhawan, Sirsa, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Manager, Sirsa.
- Kaveri Seed Company Limited, 513-B, 5th Floor, Minerva Complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad-500003, Andhra Pradesh, through its Managing Director, Secunderabad-500003 (Andhra Pradesh).
- M/s Rama Agro Chemicals, 2-3-4, Janta Hospital Road, Sirsa, through its Proprietor (impleaded vide order dated 30.8.2016)
...…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. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 3.
Sh. Sandeep Kamboj, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that he purchased three packets of cotton seed Kaveri Jaadoo KCH14K59 BGII cotton hybrid manufactured by op no.2 vide bill No.10842 dated 23.5.2013 from opposite party no.1. He had sowed the said seed in his one acre land as per instructions mentioned on packets by spending huge amount. However, the crop of narma was not good in growing and was destroyed due to defective quality of seeds. The complainant informed this fact to op no.1 and asked to pay compensation upon which op no.1 visited the spot and admitted that seed is defective but did not bother about genuine request of complainant and refused to pay amount of Rs.70,000/- for loss of crop. The complainant reported the matter to the Agricultural Authority, Sirsa on 13.9.2013 to inspect the damaged crop so that the cause of damage can be ascertained and consequently the Agricultural Authority, Sirsa visited the fields of complainant on 16.9.2013 with some other person and found that plants were very short and growth of plants, flowers and tinde were not proper due to defective seed. The complainant has suffered huge financial loss and harassment due to supply of defective seed by op no.1. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply submitting therein that answering op had sold the seed to the complainant in duly packed and sealed seed packets in the condition in which the same were received by op no.1 from dealer. It is not clear in which killa number which quality of seed was sowed and what was the kind of soil. The complainant did not report any alleged defect to the answering op. The complainant after purchase of seeds never visited the answering op. The answering op has no knowledge and notice of alleged spot inspection of the field of complainant by the officers of Agriculture Department as answering op was not served with any notice of spot inspection. In the alleged inspection report, no defect in the seed has been attributed and moreover, there is no mention of square and kill numbers in which the alleged inspection was conducted. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed written statement mentioning therein that complainant has not complied with mandatory provisions of Section 13 (i) (c) of Act. The averments made in the complaint are falsified by the report of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa. According to the said report the plants of narma crop had completely germinated and its growth was normal and they were fully flowered having complete tindas and were having cotton in it. The report further says that the crop was suffering from disease. In the report there is no mention that there was any defect in the seed of narma rather it is mentioned that there was leaf curl disease. The disease to a crop is always beyond the control of the ops because it is due to natural causes and many other factors. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
4. Opposite party no.3 also in its written reply resisted the complaint on similar lines as pleaded by opposite party no.1.
5. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, bill Ex.C2, packets Ex.C3, Ex.C4, copy of letter dated 18.11.2013 Ex.C5, copy of inspection report Ex.C6, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C7 and khasra girdawari Ex.C8 and postal receipt Ex.C9. On the other hand, ops no.1 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R2. Ld. counsel for op no.2 made a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.2 be read as evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on file copy of inspection report dated 16.9.2013 conducted by the officers of Agriculture department, Sirsa. We have gone through the said report of the officers of Agriculture department. It would not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by them. From report Ex.C6 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.
8. Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002 (copy Ex.R2), issued to all the Deputy Director in the State, 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. However, the report Ex.C6 is not conclusive and the same is defective one. No notice was issued to Ops for spot verification. Moreover, report does not pin point any defect towards the seed in question and it is clearly mentioned in the report that there was effect of leaf curl disease to the crop and therefore, it cannot be said that complainant suffered loss due to the defective seed supplied by ops.
9. So, complainant has failed to prove his case. 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:8.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
