BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 117 of 2018
Date of Institution : 02.04.2018
Date of Decision : 10.12.2019
- Rakesh Kumar, aged 24 years son of Prithvi,
- Prithvi aged about 48 years son of Shri Kashi Ram, both residents of village Darba Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainants.
Versus.
1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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: SH.R.L. AHUJA ……………………..PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. B.C. Bhatiwal, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Smt. Monika Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party no.3 exparte.
ORDER
Case of the complainants, in brief is that the complainants are agriculturists and they have taken land situated in village Darba Kalan on contract basis from Sh. Om Parkash and Parmod sons of Shri Ram Murti out of which complainants have sown arahar crop in two acres of land comprised in Rectangle No. 187 Killa No.23 (8-0) and 24 (8-0). That complainants purchased seed of arhar vide batch No.8539 of the quality of SRG from opposite party no.1 for Rs.1110/- vide bill No.14284 dated 3.5.2016 and op no.1 assured the complainant that this seed will give very good result. It is further averred that as per instructions of op no.1, the complainant has sown the above said seed in two acres of land after proper leveling but the crop sown by complainant could not be germinated properly. The complainants requested the op no.1 to check the crop of fields of complainant but all in vain and op no.1 did not care about it. It is further averred that complainants moved an application to S.D.A.O., Sirsa, upon which team of S.D.A.O. checked the fields of complainants and reported the loss of crop of the fields of the complainant to the extent of 100%. That in this manner, the complainants suffered loss of 10 quintal of crop per acre and costs of two acres of crop comes to Rs.1,60,000/-. This loss was occurred due to the false assurance of the op no.1 and hence the ops are liable to pay entire loss to the complainant alongwith other charges. Even then also complainant approached ops but all in vain and ops have finally refused to admit claim of complainant without any rhyme or reason. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared. Op no.1 filed reply taking certain preliminary objections 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 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. Other preliminary objections regarding no locus standi, no cause of action and concealment and suppression of true and material facts, estoppal, complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and jurisdiction are also taken. It is also 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 complainants have not furnished any proof of sowing the arhar seed in the alleged land. The op had not given any instruction to the complainants for sowing the arhar seeds. The complainants never reported any alleged defect in the seeds and about non germination of the seeds. The answering op has no knowledge and notice of alleged spot inspection by the officer of Agriculture Department. The op no.1 was not joined in any alleged inspection. Moreover, the copy of report given by SDAO has not been supplied to op. The complainant has not mentioned the kind of soil. 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 the crop cannot be attributed to the seeds, rather there are other relevant factors. The alleged spot inspection report by the officer of the 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 taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has not filed any expert report in support of his complaint. Hence, the complainant could not prove that the seeds are defective and answering op is not at all responsible for the alleged problem. It is further submitted that complainant has not mentioned the correct and complete name of variety lot number of seed which was purchased by him. Moreover, he has not filed empty packet of seed to prove that he has purchased the seeds of this op. The yield depends upon method of sowing, time, usage of seed rate, spacing, usage of manures and fertilizers, irrigation availability, weed control, pest control and disease control measures etc. It is further submitted that authority prepared a blind report in the favour of complainant and inspection was carried out in the absence of op. The report is not based on scientific basis. Moreover, there is no finding regarding quality of seeds and the said report is silent on quality of seeds. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3 despite due service and therefore, op no.3 was proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant and opposite parties 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 complaint have furnished affidavit of Rakesh Kumar complainant as Ex.CW1/A. They have also furnished copy of letter dated 7.2.2017 Ex.C1, copy of inspection report Ex.C2 and copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Krishan Kumar as Ex.R1/A. OP no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Mahavir Parshad proprietor as Ex.R2/A, copy of ledger Ex.R1 and copies of bills Ex.R2 to Ex.R10.
8. The complainants have filed this complaint with the averments that they have taken land on contract from Om Parkash and Parmod sons of Ram Murti in which they had sown crop of arhar by purchasing seed from opposite party no.1. But however, the perusal of file reveals that complainants have not placed on record any agreement of lease for taking the land on lease from aforesaid Om Parkash and Parmod. Nor they have placed on record any copy of jamabandi and khasra girdawari in order to prove the fact that they had ever cultivated the land of said Om Parkash and Parmod and sown crop of arhar. The complainants have relied upon report of officers of agricultural department which is Ex.C2 on file. This report reveals that it does not find mention any killa number or khasra number of the land which was inspected by officers of agricultural department. Moreover, this report reveals that the officers of agricultural department did not make any remarks that seed was defective. The officers of agricultural department did not take any sample from the complainant or from the dealer in order to send the same to the laboratory to get ascertained quality of the seed. Further more, no notice of inspection was ever given by the officers of agricultural department to the dealer or to the manufacturer before visiting the fields of the complainants. So, it appears from the evidence of complainants that they have failed to lead cogent and convincing evidence in order to prove their allegations in the complaint.
9. In view of 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.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:10.12.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
