BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 115 of 2018
Date of Institution : 02.04.2018
Date of Decision : 23.10.2019.
- Ami Lal, aged 40 years son of Manphool,
- Sarwan aged about 46 years son of Shri Bhadar, both residents of village Darba Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainants.
Versus.
- M/S Kheti Sewa Centre (Wholesale & Retail Pesticides and Seeds Dealers), 28, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Manager.
- M/S Nandini Agri Sciences Private Limited, #6-2-969, Flat No.302, Intech Residency Khairathabad, Hyderabad-500004 through Managing Director/ Competent authority (Manufacturer of Seed).
- M/s Rama Agro Chemicals, 2-3-4 Janta Hospital Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its proprietor/ partner/ owner (Distributor of seeds).
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…………….. PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….. MEMBER
Present: Sh. B.C. Bhatiwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Smt. Monika Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.3 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainants is that they are agriculturists. They have taken land situated in village Darba Kalan on contract out of which they have sown arahar crop in six acres of land comprised in Rect. No.187 Rectangle No.188 Killa No.21 (8-0), Killa No.25(8-0) and 22(8-0), Rectangle No.202 Killa No.2 (8-), 3(8-0), 4(8-0) and 5/1 (5-7) situated in village Darba Kalan, District Sirsa. That complainants purchased seed of arhar vide batch No.8539 quality SRG from op no.1 for Rs.4625/- vide bill No.14037 dated 28.4.2016 and op no.1 assured the complainants for very good crop through this seed and also assured that this seed will give very good result. That as per instructions of op no.1, the complainants sown the above said seed in six acres of land but crop could not be germinated properly and damaged. That complainants requested op no.1 to inspect the crop in the fields of complainants but to no effect. The op no.1 has supplied defective seed with the motive to cause losses to complainants. That complainants moved an application to S.D.A.O, Sirsa upon which team of agriculture department inspected the fields of complainants and reported the loss of crop to the extent of 100%. It is further averred that complainants have purchased seeds from op no.1, op no.2 is manufacturing company of above said seed and op no.3 is the distributor of said seed, hence all the ops are responsible for the losses caused to the complainants due to non germination of the seed in a proper manner. That complainants have suffered total loss of Rs.4,80,000/- and the ops have refused to admit the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding no locus standi, no cause of action, suppression of true and material facts, estoppal, non joinder of necessary parties and jurisdiction. It is also submitted that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as no defect in the seed is proved. 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 3.1.2002 issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana. It is further submitted that complaint is bad for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, as the complainants have not furnished the report of any expert/ lab. test report about the quality of the seeds. On merits, it is submitted that no alleged assurance was given by op to the complainants. The complainants have not furnished any proof of sowing arhar seed in the alleged six acres of land. The op had not given any instruction to the complainants for sowing arhar seeds. The complainants have never reported any alleged defect in the seeds and never reported about non germination of the seeds nor ever got their field inspected from the op. The op was not joined in any alleged inspection. Moreover, copy of report given by SDAO has not been supplied to op. It is further submitted that complainant has not mentioned the kind of soil in which he allegedly sowed the seeds. The seeds manufactured by manufacturing company was of high quality and high standard and the same was sold in the sealed and packed condition by op. There was no defect in the seed sold to the complainant. The variation of crop cannot be attributed to the seeds, rather there are other relevant factors. The alleged spot inspection report by the officer of Agriculture Department is not a scientific and technical report. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed separate written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has not mentioned the correct and complete name of variety lot number of seed which was purchased by him. Moreover, complainant has not filed empty packet of seed to prove that he has purchased the seeds of this op. It is further submitted that soil and climate of land of complainant is not suitable for the seed of arhar because the crop of arhar is mainly for Madhya Pardesh. The yield depends upon various factors. In this crop single super fastfat of farforce and sulfer also used. It is also submitted that there is a main problem of American insect (Sundi) for this crop. The report of Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer, Sirsa is totally silent on quality of seed. There is not a single word in the above said report against the quality of seed. The quality of seeds was defective only on his own presumption. Simply because of less growth of plants and less flowers, it cannot be said that seeds sown was not good. The said problem may be due to many other reasons/ factors and not only due to quality of seeds. The entire inspection was carried out in the absence of this op. The report of agricultural officer is based on the information given by complainant and on the basis of assumption and presumption and is not based on scientific basis. The complainant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by sending seed sample to the testing laboratory for analysis to ascertain the quality of the seeds. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. Opposite party no.3 did not appear despite service of notice and was proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant and ops no.1 and 2 then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainants in order to prove their case have furnished affidavit of Ami Lal as Ex.CW1/A and tendered copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.C1, copy of letter Ex.C2, copy of inspection report Ex.C3, copy of application Ex.C4 and copy of jamabandi Ex.C5. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Mahavir Parshad, Proprietor as Ex.R1, copy of ledger Ex.R2 and copies of bills Ex.R3 to Ex.R10. OP no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Krishan Kumar as Ex.RW1/A.
8. As per allegations of complainant, he had purchased seed of arhar from opposite party no.1 which was manufactured by op no.2 and op no.3 is distributor. Further there are allegations that op no.1 has supplied falsified seed due to his own benefits and also with motive to cause losses to the complainants. The complainant has relied upon report of inspecting team of Agricultural Department who had allegedly inspected the field of complainants in their presence and submitted their report Ex.C3. The perusal of this report reveals that inspection was made by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa alongwith Quality Control Inspector, Sirsa and they reported that they visited the fields of complainants in which crop of arhar was standing in six acres and the heights of the plants was 10-12 feet and ‘fallis’ on all the plants were not matured, flowers and green fallis were on the plants, the maturity of which was not possible due to less temperature and it was clear that crop which matures in long period was sown whereas in this zone, the crop which matures in 120 days is recommended and in this way there was 100% loss in six acres of land. But however, inspecting officers have not mentioned in their report that seed supplied by op no.1 was defective in any way rather they have pointed out that complainants have sown variety of crop of arhar which take long time in maturity whereas the climate requires short term variety of arhar crop. The Inspecting Officers never observed that seed is defective. Moreover, they have not taken any sample of the seed in question nor they have sent the sample of the seed to any Analyst Laboratory in order to get their expert opinion that seed was defective. The report further reveals that inspecting officers have not given any opinion that loss of crop was due to any defect in the seed in question. Further more, no notice of inspection was served to the ops before inspection of the fields of the complainant and inspection was done in absence of the ops and ops were also not asked to provide any sample of the seed in question for sending the same to the laboratory for analysis. So, it cannot be said that report of agriculture department is an authentic document and complainant has failed to prove their allegations by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
9. In view our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same 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 after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:23.10.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
