BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 101 of 2019
Date of Institution : 27.02.2019
Date of Decision : 19.09.2023.
Jai Kishan aged about 55 years son of Shri Shanker Lal, resident of village Bodiwala, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Khurana Agro Services, Ding Mandi Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Fatehabad.
3. JK Agri Gentics Ltd, C/O Saksham Enterprises, KC Complex, Near Nambardar Petrol Pump, Malout Road, Bathinda- 151 001 (Op no.3 impleaded as per order dated 04.09.2019.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
BEFORE: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….. MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. D.S. Smagh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties no.1 and 3.
None for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is resident of village Bodiwala, Tehsil and District Fatehabad and is co-sharer in land measuring 72 Kanals (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) and in possession of land measuring comprised in Sq. No. 158 Killa No. 14 (8-0), 17 (8-0), 24(8-0) and 16 min (6-0) Sq. no. 174 Killa no. 4 (8-0) out of the aforesaid land. That Smt. Raja Bala is co-sharer to the extent of 1/2 share of land measuring 201 kanals 15 marlas (as detailed in para no.1) situated in village Bodiwala, Tehsil and District Fatehabad and out of the aforesaid land Smt. Raj Bala has given land measuring 22 kanals 16 marlas to the complainant for cultivation. It is further averred that in order to sow cotton crop in the above said land on 19.05.2018 the complainant went to op no.1 and purchased six packets (having 450 gram of seed in each pack) of BT cotton seeds JKCH 8940 BG-II for a sum of Rs.4440/- vide bill/ invoice no. 2060 dated 19.05.2018. That on 22.05.2018 complainant purchased 10 packets of same deed from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.7400/- vide bill/ invoice no. 2093 dated 22.05.2018. The complainant sowed the seed according to the instructions given by op no.1 in about seven acres of land comprised Sq. No. 158 Killa No. 14 (8-), 17 (8-0), 24 (8-0), 16 min (6-0), Sq. No. 176 Killa No. 4 (8-0), Sq. No. 150 Killa No. 16/1 (4-17), 17/1 (2-9), 25/2(4-16), Sq. No. 151 Killa no. 20 (8-0) situated in village Bodiwala, Tehsil and District Fatehabad and provided irrigation, put fertilizers and sprayed the pesticides on the aforesaid cotton crop from time to time according to the instructions of op no.1 but the cotton crop plaints could not get requisite height nor could get required number of Tindas on each plant. That opening of tindas was not normal but kodi-shaped and even the quality was not up to the mark rather it was inferior. It is further averred that on the application dated 12.09.2019 moved by complainant to the Deputy Director Agriculture Department, Fatehabad, a team of experts from agriculture department consisting of Block Agriculture Officer, Bhattu Kalan, Subject Experts, Fatehabad and Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Fatehabad visited the aforesaid land of complainant on 3.10.2018 and submitted their report to the authorities. The committee found that complainant had suffered an economic loss to the extent of 55-60% in the land measuring 2.25 acres and 40-45% loss in land measuring 4.75 acres due to bad quality of the seed purchased from op no.1. That complainant has suffered total loss of 37 quintals 65 Kgs. due to sowing of inferior quality of BT cotton seed as sold by op no.1 even if minimum yield per acre is taken for calculation of loss and even if minimum price of BT narma per quintal is taken to be Rs.5500/-, the complainant has suffered total loss of the amount of Rs.2,07,075/- and as op no.1 has disclosed that he purchased seed in question from op no.3, so op no.3 has also been impleaded in the complaint and all the ops are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. It is further averred that complainant approached the ops and requested them to admit his claim and to pay the compensation amount for loss of his cotton crop but they did not pay any heed and refused to do so a month back and have caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as no defect in the seed is proved. In the spot inspection report, which was inspected by the officers of Agriculture Department, they have not mentioned the killas numbers and khasra numbers of the land and have not given any finding that alleged loss has been suffered by complainant due to quality of seed. From the report, it is no where clarified that inspection was done on the land in which complainant used the seed, so complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further submitted that alleged spot inspection is stated to have been conducted on 3.10.2018 when the picking up season is always over in normal course of nature. So on 3.10.2018, there would have been no crop standing at the spot. Thus, the said inspection report appears to be manipulated one. It is further submitted that complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and he has concealed true and material facts from this Commission and is estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct. 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. So, the alleged spot inspection report is no report in the eyes of law and same is liable to be ignored. It is further submitted that complaint is bad for non compliance of 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 and that this Forum (now Commission) has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the subject matter of present complaint. On merits, while denying the contents of complaint, it is also submitted that answering op no.1 sold and supplied the duly packed and sealed packets of seed to the complainant which he has received from the distributor/ company. The answering op was not given any notice of alleged inspection nor was joined in the alleged spot inspection of the field of complainant. The pleas of preliminary objections are also reiterated and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. OP no.2 appeared through authorized official and filed written version submitting therein that allegations of complainant are against dealer and seed manufacturing company. That complainant moved an application on 12.09.2018 which was received by their office vide receipt no. 3514 on 12.09.2018. Thereafter, this office constituted a inspection committee with expertise’s members i.e. Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Fatehabad, Subject Matter Specialist (Agro) Fatehabad and Block Agriculture Officer, Fatehabad vide this office dispatch no. 6950-52 dated 17.09.2018. After inspection of field of complainant, the inspection committee made a inspection report and submitted to Deputy Director Agriculture Officer and report was provided to the complainant at that time with assessment of loss. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. Op no.3 on being impleaded and on notice appeared and filed written version on the similar lines as that of op no.1 and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sachin Khurana proprietor as Ex.R1 and copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R2. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Deepak Bhalla, Regional Manager as Ex.R3. Op no.2 has not led any evidence and none is appearing on behalf of op no.2 since many dates.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for ops no.1 and 3 and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. The complainant in his complaint has not mentioned that which marka of pesticides/ fertilizers was used by him on his cotton crop and has only alleged defect in the seeds supplied by op no.1. It is very well known fact that better produce of yield depends upon using of better quality of pesticides etc. on the crop. In the inspection report of the field of complainant Ex.C6, the two officers of Agriculture Department and Subject Specialist have also not mentioned that which type of pesticide was used on the crop by the complainant and they have not mentioned in their report that loss of crop was only due to inferior quality of seeds and not due to spraying of pesticides etc. Further more, the inspection of the field of the complainant was not carried out as per the letter of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dated 03.01.2022 (Ex.R2) because as per this letter fields of complainant was to be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of agriculture department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientists of KGK/ KVK, HAU but however, no representative of the ops no.1 and 3 was joined at the time of inspection and even no notice of the same was given to them and as such the report itself is defective and not valid in the eyes of law. Moreover, in the report it is not clear that complainant suffered loss due to poor quality of seed purchased from op no.1 because the inspecting team has not stated even a single word about using of any pesticide by the complainant and that loss of crop was not due to use of pesticide and as such it cannot be said that ops no.1 and 3 have supplied mixed/ duplicate seeds to the complainant. Moreover, good germination and good yield depends upon so many factors like quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer and pesticides and weather conditions. The complainant has not proved on record through any cogent and convincing evidence that complainant used proper quality of pesticides etc. for avoiding effect of any disease on the crop. So, the complainant has failed to prove on record that ops no.1 and 3 have supplied misbranded and substandard quality of the seeds to him.
10. 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 as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 19.09.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
