BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 120 of 2017
Date of Institution : 30.5.2017
Date of Decision : 30.1.2019
Rohtash, aged about 40 years son of Shri Bhadar Singh, resident of village Darba Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……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 Rama Agro Chemicals, 2-3-4, Janta Hospital Road, Sirsa, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager (Distributor)
3. Nandiniagri Sciences Pvt. Ltd. H.O. #6-2-969, Flat No.302, Intech Residency Khairathabad, Hyderabad-004 through its Managing Director (Manufacturing company).
...…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. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2.
Opposite party no.3 exparte.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is an agriculturist. He has taken land on contract basis from Shri Om Parkash and Parmod sons of Shri Ram Murti situated in village Darba Kalan out of which the complainant has sown arhar crop in one acre four kanal land comprised in Rect. No.193 Killa No.2 (8-0), 8/2 (2-0) and 9(2-10). The complainant purchased seed of arhar vide batch No.3539 for Rs.1295/- of the quality of SRG from the op no.1 vide bill No.13844 dated 23.4.2016 and the op no.1 assured that this seed will give very good result. That as per instructions of op no.1, the complainant 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. It is further averred that 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 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 complainant has not furnished the report of any expert/Lab. test report about the quality of the seeds. On merits, it is submitted that op sold the seeds in sealed and packed packets, as received from the distributor. The op did not give any alleged assurance to the complainant. This is all made-up and concocted story of complainant and there is not an iota of truth in the same. The op did not give any instruction to the complainant, rather the complainant had purchased the seed of his own accord by saying that he is an experienced farmer. It is further submitted that complainant did not report any alleged defect to the op. The complainant never intimated the op about the facts alleged nor ever got his field inspected from the op. The op has no knowledge and notice of alleged spot inspection by the officer of agriculture department. The op was not joined in any alleged inspection. Moreover, the copy of report given by the S.D.A.O. has not been supplied to the op. The complainant has not mentioned the kind of soil in which he allegedly sown the seeds. The seed manufactured by the manufacturing company was of high quality and high standard. There was no defect in the seed sold to the complainant. It is further submitted that the variation of the crop cannot be attributed to the seeds, rather there are other relevant factors. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 on being impleaded as op no.2 appeared and filed reply and resisted the complaint on similar lines as that of op no.1 mentioned above.
4. Op no.3 did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against exparte.
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 affidavits of Sh. Om Parkash and Sh. Parmod sons of Ram Murti as Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A in which they have deposed that they have given their agricultural land to Rohtash complainant out of which in 1 kanal 4 marlas land complainant had sown arhar crop but due to defective seed of arhar complainant suffered huge loss. 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, copy of jamabandi Ex.C5, copy of jamabandi Ex.C6, copy of adhar card of Sh. Om Parkash Ex.C7, copy of adhar card of Sh. Parmod Ex.C8. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 produced affidavit of Sh. Mahavir Dhaka, Proprietor of op no.1 Ex.R1 in which he has deposed on the lines of written version. They have further relied upon copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R2, copies of various bills Ex.R3 to Ex.R29.
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. Om Parkash and Sh. Parmod. 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 takes long time to mature whereas in this zone sowing of 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 ops no.1 and 2 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.
