BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 52 of 2017
Date of Institution : 6.3.2017
Date of Decision : 30.1.2019
Dharam Pal, aged about 42 years son of Shri Jagdish, resident of village Darba Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainant.
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 Agrisciences 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
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. B.C. Bhatiwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ajay Bansal, Advocate for opposite parties No.1.
Smt. Sunita Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 &3.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is an agriculturist. He has taken land measuring 45 kanals 9 marlas comprised in Rect. No.191 Killa No.24/2(4-11), 25(7-11), Rect. No.192 Killa No.17/2(3-14), 21(7-11), 22(7-11), 23(7-11), 24(7-0) situated in village Darba Kalan on contract from Shri Babu Lal son of Chanan, resident of village Darba Kalan and out of which the complainant has sown Arhar crop in 1 acre 4 kanal land comprised in Rect. No. 192 Killa No.17/2(3-14), 24(7-0), 23(1-6). That complainant purchased seed of Arhar vide batch No.8539 for Rs.1110/- of the quality of SRG-72 from the op no.1 vide bill No.14044 dated 28.4.2016 after assurance of op no.1 about good result of the seed. It is further averred that as per instructions of op, the complainant has sown the above said seed in 1 acre 4 kanals of land after proper leveling but the crop could not be germinated properly. The complainant requested the op to check the crop of fields of complainant but all in vain and op did not care about it. The complainant moved an application to S.D.A.O., Sirsa, upon which team of S.D.A.O. checked the fields of complainant and reported the loss of crop of the fields of the complainant to the extent of 100%. That in this manner, the complainant suffered loss of 10 quintal of crop per acre and costs of one and half acres of crop comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. This loss was occurred due to the false assurance of the op and hence the op is liable to pay entire loss to the complainant alongwith other charges. Even then also complainant approached op but all in vain and op has finally refused to admit claim of complainant without any rhyme or reason. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding cause of action, maintainability, non joinder of necessary parties and that products in question are of very high quality and are based on the latest level of specifications. Moreover, the fetching of a particular produce depends on variety of factors such as favourable weather conditions, quality of the soil, means of irrigation, type of the crop and the manner and method vide which the insecticide/ pesticide/ fungicide is used. If these factors are taken into consideration, the averments made in the complaint are totally evasive. On merits, it is submitted that complainant is required to prove the assertions by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The answering op is totally unaware of the facts of ownership of the land or the land taken by complainant on contract basis. It is further submitted that op sells the products of various companies as per the demand made by the customers. The op is not running any advisory center or making recommendations to use a particular brand. It is for the agriculture department of Haryana to advise the farmers in this regard. The op sold the seeds in question in sealed packets as received by him from the Distributor/ company but there is nothing to prove that the seeds were of bad quality or that the same did not confirm to the specifications. It is further submitted that op was never associated in the alleged inspection by the agriculture department, which is mandatory in view of the instructions of the Director Agriculture Department issued to all Deputy Directors. As per the knowledge of the op there is nothing in the report from which it can be inferred that the seeds were of bad quality. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. On being impleaded as op no.2 after filing written statement of op no.1, op no.2 appeared on notice and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as complainant has not filed any expert report in support of his complaint. Hence, the complainant could not prove that the seeds are defective. Other preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, complaint is bad for mis joinder of parties are also taken. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has not mentioned the correct and complete name of variety lot number of which seed was purchased by complainant. Moreover, complainant has not filed empty packet of seed to prove that he has purchased the seeds of this op. It is necessary to take note that soil and climate of the land of complainant is not suitable for the seed of arhar because the crop of arhar is mainly for Madhya Pardesh. The productivity of land and climate of the area is not suitable for this seed. It is further submitted that it is necessary to take proper plant protection measures as the yield depends upon method of sowing, sowing time, usage of seed rate, spacing, use of manures and fertilizers, irrigation availability, weed control, pest control and disease control measures etc. Hence, the said problem may be due to many other reasons/ factors and not due to quality of seed. In this crop single super fast fat of farforce and sulfur also used. There is main problem of American sundi for this crop. It is further submitted that report of Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer, Sirsa is totally silent on quality of seed. There is not a single word in the abovesaid report against the quality of seed. The quality of seeds was defective only on his own presumption. The entire inspection was carried out in the absence of answering op. The report is based on the information given by complainant and on the basis of assumption and presumption and is not based on scientific basis. It is further submitted that complainant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by sending seed sample to the seed testing laboratory for analysis to ascertain the quality of the seeds. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
4. Opposite party no.3 also on being impleaded as op no.3 on notice appeared and filed written statement and resisted the complaint on the lines of op no.2. Besides above, it is also submitted that op no.3 is neither manufacturer company nor the seller, he is only distributor and not responsible for the quality of seed. The op no.3 handed over the sealed packets to op no.1 as it is as received from the company and has not broken the seal of seeds and complainant has unnecessary impleaded op no.3 in this complaint. Other contents of complaint are also denied.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint. He has also furnished affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal son of Chanan Ram Ex.CW2/A in which he has deposed that he has given 45 kanal 9 marla land to Dharmpal son of Jagdish on lease basis. He has also supported the version of complainant regarding loss of crop due to defective seed. The complainant has further relied upon copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.C1, copy of letter dated 7.2.2017 Ex.C2, copy of inspection report Ex.C3, copy of application Ex.C4 and copy of jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 Ex.C5. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Mahavir Parshad Proprietor Ex.R1 in which he has deposed on the lines of written version. OP no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Krishan Kumar Ex.R4 and op no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Bhushan Kumar Ex.R5.
8. The perusal of the complaint as well as evidence reveals that complainant has averred that he had sown Arhar seed in one acre four kanal land after taking land on lease from land owner namely Sh. Babu Lal. It is further averred that crop of arhar sown by complainant could not be germinated properly and became defective and he has suffered loss due to false assurance of op no.1 and has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/-. He has relied upon report of agriculture department Ex.C3. The perusal of the report Ex.C3 reveals that it is mentioned by the officers of the agricultural department in the report that on their joint inspection of the field, it was found by them that there was crop of arhar in 1 acre 4 kanal of land, the length of plants was 10-12 feet and on all the plants there was no mature phalli, there were flowers and green phalli and there was no possibility of maturity of the same due to less temperature and it was clear from seeing the same that complainant had sown crop which take long time to mature whereas in this zone the quality of crop which becomes mature in less period i.e. 120 days is recommended. In this way there was total loss of crop in 1 acre 4 kanal land. The perusal of the said report reveals that it is no where mentioned by inspecting team that there was any defect in the seed of arhar nor the officers of the agriculture department made any demand of the sample of the seed in order to get the same tested from the Govt. approved laboratory. So it appears from the report of the officers of the agriculture department that they have not leveled any allegation against the ops for supplying any defective seed nor they have called upon ops to join inspection proceedings.
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.1 has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in case titled as Narender Kumar Versus Arora Trading Company and others, 2007 (2) CLT 683 in which it was observed that “ The complainant has primarily placed reliance on the report of Agriculture Development Officer, Fatehabad dated 13.2.2004. In this report, no doubt, it is mentioned that 50% of the wheat crop had been deteriorated in two acres of land and in the remaining two acres of land the loss of crop was to the extent of 25%. Surprising enough, killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land which was inspected by him has not been mentioned in the report. No doubt, it had been concluded that the wheat crop was burnt due to Phytotoxic effect. Therefore, the report submitted by Agriculture Development Officer does not pin point the identity of the land of the complainant and for that reason this report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. In this regard the observations made by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Hindustan Insecticides Ltd.v. Kopolu Sambasiva Rao and others, 2006 (1) CLT 223, are as under:-
“10. Crops can fail due to various reasons viz. poor quality of seeds, fertilizers, inadequate rainfall or irrigation, and also due to poor quality or inadequate or overdoes of pesticides/ insecticides. Therefore whether the cotton crop failed due to poor quality of insecticides is required to be proved by reliable evidence or the procedure prescribed by law. In this connection, it would be useful to go through Section 13 (1) (c), Consumer Protection Act for sending the samples to the analysis. This was not done.
11. Complainant should have produced the sample before the District Forum for getting it analyze or as has been advised by the Diagnostic Team of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University. Samples should have been got drawn from the material with the complainant and got it tested.
10. So, it appears from the evidence of complainant that complainant has failed to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that seed supplied by op no.1 was defective. Moreover, there are number of factors of loss of crop i.e. low quality of the land, proper irrigation, environment and climate which are necessary for proper germination of the seed. So, it cannot be presumed that loss, if any suffered by complainant is due to any defective seed. So there does not appear to be any deficiency in service on the part of ops. Hence, the present complaint 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:30.1.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
