BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:87 of 2017. Date of Instt.: 18.04.2017.
Date of Order: 18.05.2018.
Pokhar Singh son of Sh.Ladhu son of Manphool, resident of village Sulikhera, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Kheti Sewa Center, 28-Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa through its Proprietor/Partner.
- M/s Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Private Limited, Tilak Bazar, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar through Managing Director/ Manager.
…Respondents/OPs
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh.M.K.Khurana, Member.
Present: Sh.Manjit Kajla, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh.Sandeep Bhatia, Adv. for OPs.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he is resident of village Sulikhera, District Fatehabad and owner of 3/5 share of land comprised in Khewat No.245 Kitat 11 measuring 62 Kanals and he is also in possession of agriculture land comprised in Khewat no.245 situated at village Sulikhera, Distt. Fatehabad. It is further submitted that the complainant is a progressive farmer and for getting a high yield of the crops he purchased SU 385 seed of Desi Kapas (Cotton) from OP No.1 weighing 6 Kg for sowing the same in his aforesaid land vide invoice No.13117 dated 02.04.2016, in the name of his tenant Kuldeep Singh for a sum of Rs.2160/-. The complainant had made payment of the above said amount in cash to Op No.1. The above said seed sold by Op No.1 was manufactured by Op no.2. Therefore the complainant is consumer of OPs as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. It is further submitted that at the time of selling the seed to the complainant the OP No.1 had assured that the seeds sold by him is certified and of very fine quality and will give a yield of 32 Maunds from 1 acre. It is further submitted that while sowing the said seed in 25 kanals 5 marlas of agriculture land, the complainant had followed all the instructions of the OP No.1. Moreover the complainant is a progressive and experienced farmer fully acquainted with the agriculture practices.
3. It is further submitted that after some days of plantation of cotton in the fields, it was noticed by the complainant that the plants were not having fruits/ flowers and the height of the plants was between 4 feet to 7 feet and the plants had become dry. From the naked-eye it was appearing that the seed supplied by the Op No.1 was of a substandard quality. Thereafter the plants started vanishing and the root cause of the above said problem was substandard seed supplied by the OPs to the complainant, so the complainant contacted to OP no.1 many times for visiting the fields of the complainant, but all in vain. Therefore the complainant moved an application to Deputy Director of Agriculture Fatehabad, who further directed Quality Control Inspector, Fatehabad and subject specialist Agro, Fatehabad to visit the fields of the complainant and report the matter. On this a team of experts of Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant on 15.10.2016 and submitted inspection report vide which the team of experts inter-alia reported that only 10 to 15 Tindas were there on each plant and the same were small in size and affected by disease. The experts further opined that on account of less Tindas on the plants, the complainant has suffered a loss to the extent of 75-80%. It is also further submitted that the complainant got only 7 Maunds of cotton from 1 acre instead of 32 Maunds as assured by Op No.1. in this way the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,80,000/- being value of 75 Maunds of cotton @ Rs.6000/- per quintal.
4. It is further submitted that the above said act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in selling him the cotton seed. The complainant has further prayed that the OPs may be directed for making a payment of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.20,000/- as compensation. Hence, the present complaint.
5. On being served Op no.1 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a reply wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, without any evidence, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of correct facts etc. have been raised.
6. In reply on merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the seed from OP no.1. It is further submitted that some other seed was sown by the complainant in his land or the complainant had mixed some other seed while sowing the cotton crop in his land. It is denied that the complainant is a progressive and experienced farmer.
7. It is further submitted that OP no.1 had purchased the seed in question from OP No.2 and OP No.1 had sold the same in a sealed packing to the complainant in which condition it was purchased by him from Op no.2 and as such OP No.1 has no concern with the result of the seed. Moreover the complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the same seed was sown by him in his land. It is further submitted that report of Experts of Agriculture Department is also wrong, illegal and baseless as no analysis and test has been conducted to ascertain the quality and variety of seed and the alleged inspection report has been fabricated by the team of Agriculture Department in collusion with the complainant. No prior notice was given to the complainant regarding inspection of the fields of the complainant.
8. It is further submitted that no loss has been suffered by the complainant due to use of the seed purchased from the OPs and in case any loss has occurred to the complainant that may be on account of other reasons. It is also submitted that the Agriculture Department has no authority to inspect the fields of the farmer regarding quality of seed and the inspection team was not constituted in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government in this regard. Therefore the report of Agriculture Department cannot be relied upon.
9. It is also further submitted that the quality of seed cannot be ascertained with naked-eyes and without getting the seed examined in laboratory.
10. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of Op no.1 in rendering service to the complainant. Therefore the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed against OP No.1.
11. OP No.2 also filed written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, concealment of material facts, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties etc. have been raised.
12. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant had purchased the cotton seed for commercial purposes and as such he does not fall within the definition of consumer as provided in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Op No.2 in its reply has resisted the complaint on the similar grounds as taken by the Op No.1 in its written statement. OP No.2 also controverted all the allegations made in the complaint and further submitted that the present complaint is without any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW1. One Sh.Kuldeep Singh S/o Vijay Singh tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW2 in evidence on behalf of complainant. Sh.Atma Ram S/o Kashi Ram also tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW3 in support of the case of the complainant. The learned counsel for complainant also tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 in support of the case of the complainant. On the other hand Sh.Ved Parkash, Managing Director tendered his affidavit as Annexure AW1/A on behalf of OP No.2. The OPs also tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A8 and closed the evidence.
14. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that sub-standard, inferior and adulterated quality of seed was sold to him by the OPs. The said act amounts to deficiency on the part of OPs and on account of the same he has suffered huge financial loss, mental agony and harassment. In support of his case the complainant and two other witnesses produced their affidavits in support of the complaint. To prove its case the complainant has also relied upon the inspection report of the team of experts constituted by the Department of Agriculture, Haryana. The report is Annexure C-4. The complainant has not produced any other evidence to prove that the cotton seed supplied by the Ops to him is adulterated or of inferior quality. After hearing the arguments and perusing the inspection report (Annexure C-4) and other documents placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops in selling the seed in question to the complainant. In the inspection report the team of experts has nowhere stated or opined that loss in the cotton crop is on account of inferior or adulterated quality of cotton seed sown by the complainant. In its report the Inspection Committee has reported that height of the cotton plants in the fields of the complainant are between 4 feet to 7 feet and there are 10 to 15 fruits (Tindas) on each plant and the Tindas were of small size and were disease affected. From the above said report it is established that the complainant has suffered loss in the cotton crop, however it is not established that the loss is on account of adulterated/ mixed or inferior quality of seed supplied by the Ops to the complainant. As per this report, it is not proved that the loss to the complainant is attributable to the quality of seed. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babe Ram II (2005) CPJ 94 (NC) has clearly held that in absence of clear findings regarding quality of seeds supplied, no inference could be drawn against the seed producing company. It is a settled proposition of law that in addition to quality of seed there are so many other reasons, such as climatic conditions, quality of soil, irrigation facility, use of pesticides and agriculture practices which affects the yield of a crop. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sadhu & Anrs. II (2005) 13 (SC) has held that factors like high salt concentration, brackish water, moisture content at the sowing time, sowing method and soil physical conditions, are also responsible for inadequate yield. Variation in the condition of crop cannot be attributed to the quality of seed but it can be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigations, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition. The present case is squarely covered by the above discussed judgments.
15. On the other hand, the Ops in its evidence has produced copy of test report of the seed, by seed analysist of Seed Testing Laboratory, Karnal (Annexure A-8). From perusal of the above said report, it is revealed that the seed of SV-385 variety which was sold to the complainant by the Ops was 100 percent pure and there was no adulteration / mixing in the said variety. It is a settled proposition of law that report of Seed Testing Laboratory will prevail on the report of team of experts.
16. In view of the above said discussion the present complaint 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 room after due compliance
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM Dt.18.05.2018
(M.K.Khurana) (Raghbir Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad
