BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.  

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 27 of 2018                                                      

                                                          Date of Institution         :   11.01.2018

                                                          Date of Decision :            19.03.2019

Lal Singh aged about 50 years son of Shri Tara Singh resident of village Pratap Nagar, Tehsil Ellanabad District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. M/s Kisan Uttam Beej Bhandar, Near Udham Singh Chowk, Ellenabad District Sirsa through its proprietor.

2. Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. having its head offie at Talaki Gate, Tilak Bazar, Hisar through its authorized person.

3. M/s Hisar Beej Farm, 37-B, Nai Anaj Mandi, Ellenabad, District Sirsa through its proprietor (impleaded as per order of the Hon’ble Forum).

...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:       SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER

                   MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER

Present:      Sh. Preet Amar, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. J.B.L.Garg,  Advocate for Ops No.1 & 2.

Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Advocate for Op No.3.      

ORDER

                   The case of complainant, in brief, is that he is an agriculturist by profession having his agricultural land at village Partap Nagar as well as Rania District Sirsa. On 06.05.2017, he had purchased 4 bags of Shakti Vardhak Paddy Seeds of 5 KG each (variety 1401) from Op No.1 vide bill No.18245 dated 06.05.2017 and similarly on 13.05.2017 vide bill No.18370/-, the complainant had purchased 6 bags of Shakti Vardhak paddy seeds of 5 KG each from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.5700/- under batch No.132026. Thereafter, the complainant had sown the same in his 22 acres of land after following each and every instruction given by the Op No.1 besides keeping proper watch and care over the crop but he could not receive the proper yields because the size of many plants was irregular.  The damage to the crop was due to the reasons that the seeds sold by the Op No.1 were not of pure quality rather the same was the mixture  of other low quality/duplicate seeds.  The complainant contacted the Op No.1 and brought this fact to its knowledge and assured for needful but the Ops have neither indemnify the claim nor given any response. On the application of  the complainant, officials of Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant on 04.10.2017 and in their report No.8252 dated 11.10.2017 they have opined that on account of mixture of other low quality seeds in the seeds sold to the complainant, the complainant has suffered loss in the shape of damages of his crops. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the Op No.1 for compensation but it refused to do so. The complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops but they did not pay any heed. This way, the Ops are deficient in providing service to the complainant.  

2.                          On notice Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable  as the 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 03.01.2002 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana and the inspection report is no report in the eyes of law. The alleged spot inspection report is highly defective one because in the said report no killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land have been mentioned. In the said report, it has not been clarified that the inspection was done on the land in which the present complainant used the seed.   The complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and he has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. It has been further submitted that the variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed, but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moister content at the sowing time and soil physical condition and the complainant has also not furnished the report of any expert/lab Test report about the quality of seeds. The Op No.1 had sold the paddy seeds to the complainant in the original packed and sealed condition in which the same was received by it from the stockiest/dealer. It has been further submitted that the complainant has not submitted any detail of his land in which the alleged seeds were sown. The complainant has never approached the replying Op nor reported any defect in the seeds. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the replying Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Op No.2 in its reply has submitted taken more or less the same grounds as taken by Op No.1 in its reply. However, it has been submitted that the replying Op manufactures, sales and supplies high quality and high standard paddy seeds in the market. The complainant has not clarified when he had sown the seeds and how much quantity he had sown.  The complainant has never reported any defect in the seeds to the op 2 and even no intimation was ever given by the complainant to replying OP about all the defects in the seeds. No notice of alleged spot inspection was ever given to the replying OP and in the report no killa number, in which the inspection was made, has been mentioned. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op.  The complainant has not suffered any loss, therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been mentioned.

4.                          Op No.3 in its reply has taken many preliminary objections such as maintainability, locus standi, estoppal and the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. It has been submitted that it is not clear as to in which land the complainant had sown the seed purchased by him from Op No.1. The complainant has not furnished the detail of his land i.e. square killa numbers and also the kind of land, source of irrigation, moisture content in the land. The germination of a seed  depend upon various factors viz. kind of soil, moisture content in atmosphere, climatic conditions, facilities of irrigation etc. The replying OP was not joined in the alleged checking of fields of the complainant by the officers of Agriculture Department. In the inspection report, no killa number has been mentioned and as such the same is vague in nature and does not lead anywhere.  There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                          Thereafter the parties have led their respective evidence. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17. On the other hand, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Basant Singh Ex.R1, affidavit of Raj Kumar Ex.R2, affidavit of  Gurnam Singh Ex.R4 and document Ex.R3.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.                The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. The complainant has also produced documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17. On the other hand, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Basant Singh Ex.R1, affidavit of Raj Kumar Ex.R2, affidavit of  Gurnam Singh Ex.R4 and document Ex.R3. In the affidavits furnished on behalf of the Ops the deponents have reiterated their respective contents made in the replies to the complaint.

8.                          Admittedly, the complainant has purchased 4 bags of Shakti Vardhak Paddy seeds of 5 KG each (Variety 1401) from the Op No.1 vide bill No.18245 dated 06.05.2017 and similarly on 13.05.2017 vide bill No.18370 the complainant had purchased 6 bags of Shakti Vardhak paddy seeds of 5 KG each from the Op No.1 for a total sum of Rs.5700/- under batch No.132026. As per allegation of the complainant the seed was of mix quality which he had sown in his fields. He moved an application to the officials of Agriculture Department, who inspected the land the complainant and submitted their report Ex.C3. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the Op Nos. 1 & 2 that no doubt they have sold out the seed to the complainant but the same was of not mix quality and they sold the same to the complainant in original packed and sealed condition in which the same was received by it from Op No.3.  Further, it is the plea of Op Nos. 1 & 2 that there are other factors which affect the quality of the paddy. No killa number of the land has been mentioned in the compliant as well as in the report of the agriculture department. It has been specifically contended by learned counsel for the Op Nos.1 & 2 that there is no specific report of the Agriculture Department that the seed was defective with mix quality nor any sample has been taken from the Op No.1 & 2 for sending the same for analysis to the lab.

9.                          The complainant has alleged that he has sown the paddy in his land but the complaint reveals that the killa number of the land has not been mentioned in the complaint nor it does find mentioned in the report of the Agriculture Department Ex.C3.  So, without mentioning the killa number it cannot be presumed that the seed was sown in the land of the complainant and further, it cannot be presumed that inspection of the officials of the agriculture department in the land of the complainant was done. It is also relevant to mention here that the complainant has alleged in his complaint that he has sown the seed in his agriculture land, but however, while leading evidence he has placed on record copy of lease deed for taking the land on lease from different owners. So, it appears that the complainant has not led the evidence in support of his pleadings in his complaint.

10.                        It is also proved fact on record that the officials of the agriculture department who visited at the spot in order to verify the land of the complainant did not mention the killa number in their report which was inspected by them nor they have mentioned the fact that the land which was inspected by their officials was the ownership of the complainant or it was a leased land. Nor they had called upon the dealer and manufacturer of the seed in order to join the inspection proceedings. It is also a proved fact on the record that team of the officials of the agriculture department had not called upon the dealer and manufacturer to handover the sample of the seed of the same in order to send the same to the lab. So, without the report of the lab it cannot be presumed that the seed sown by the complainant was of mix quality.

11.                        In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and conducive evidence, therefore, the present complaint stands dismissed 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.                                           President,

Dated:19.03.2019                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                         Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                             Member                         Member                                                              

                       DCDRF,Sirsa                 DCDRF,Sirsa