Haryana

Ambala

CC/337/2015

Ram Saran - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Krishi Sewa Kender - Opp.Party(s)

Bhajan Singh Behgal

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 337 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution         : 02.12.2015

                                                          Date of decision   : 13.11.2017

 

Ram Saran son of Shri Ranjit Singh resident of village and post office- Tharwa, Tehsil & District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

                                         Versus

 

1.       M/s Krishi Sewa Kender, Shop No.141, New Grain Market, Ambala City         through its Proprietor.  

2.       The General Manager, VNR Seeds Pvt. Ltd; Ratnagiri Arcade, First Floor,        OPP. Raj Kumar college, GE. Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhatisgarh-       492001.

 

….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh. B.S. Behgal, counsel for complainant.

                   OP No.1 already exparte.

                   Sh. C.L. Kohli, counsel for OP No.2.

 

ORDER:

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased 4 bags of 3 KG each containing paddy seeds from the OP NO.1 and sown the same in his field as per the instructions of the OPs. In the month of September 2015, the complainant noticed irregular growth of the paddy plant and difference in their size, therefore, he brought this fact to the OPs who assured to inspect the field but after waiting for a week the complainant moved an application before the Agricultural Department, Ambala for assessment of the paddy crops in question regarding irregular growth. The Agricultural Team of Expert of Agricultural Department Ambala visited the spot and inspected the crops on 17.09.2015 and in their report they have opined that the plant maturity percentage was 60-70% and there was segregation or mixing upto 38% and the present loss is 38%.  The complainant requested the OPs to make the payment of compensation and also got served legal notice upon them but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the present complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure C1 and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C9.

2.                Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and contested the present complaint by filing his reply, however, OP No.1 did not appear before the Forum and proceeded against exparte.

                   OP No.2 in its reply submitted that it is manufacturer of every product of the firm and without lot number no product has been sent for sale and in the instant case no lot number is mentioned by the complainant in this complaint and even the complainant has not complied with Section 13(1) C of CP Act which is mandatory for proper adjudication of the present complaint. Further submitted that a direction issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana Panchkula to all the Deputy Director, Agriculture in the State vide memo No.52-70 dated 03.01.2002 regarding the inspection of farmer fields on receipt of a complaint regarding sale of poor quality seeds, the brief facts of this letter is “it has been reported by the some seed producing distributors agent that fields of complainants farmer are inspected by the office of the Agriculture department without associating the representative of concern seeds and sometimes cases in the Court of law are decided after taking into consideration reports of these inspections. Therefore, it has been decided that fields of the complainant farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising of two officer of Agriculture Department one representative of concern seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KV, HAU and report will be submitted to the officer immediately after inspection. The complainant has never purchased any product from OP No.1. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence, the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R26.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Counsel for complainant argued that the seed in question was mixed with some other varieties and not of the best quality. Report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C4) was relied upon by complainant wherein the loss percentage has been assessed upto 38-42 % as there was segregation or mixing upto 38 %. Counsel for complainant further argued that due to supplying of inferior & mixed quality of seeds, complainant suffered a financially loss and  requested for allowing the present complaint.

                   On the other hand, counsel for OP No.2 has argued that there was no deficiency in seeds and the germination of seeds depends upon the proper ploughing of fields and proper supply of manures and there after proper irrigation as well as climatic conditions prevalent at that time. Counsel for OP No.2 further stressed his arguments on the ground that the report of Agriculture Department has not been carried out in the presence of any person of OP No.2 and the even the complainant has purchased any product from Op No.1 because no lot number has been mentioned on the bill allegedly issued by the OP No.1 at the time of purchase of peddy seeds. Counsel for the OP No.2 has further argued that the products of the OP No.2 are of best product of the market and the complainant has even not complied with the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act.

5.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties, there are two points involved in this case:-

                   1.       Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs or                                   not?

                   2.       If deficiency in service on the part of Ops is proved then to                                what extent, the complainant is entitled for compensation?

 

6.                          The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased 3 bags i.e. 3 kg each of seeds of paddy (ziri) after paying the amount of Rs.6920/- vide bill dated 09.05.2015 Annexure C2 dated 09.05.2015 from OP No.1  and after its purchase he had sown the same in 3 acres of land.   

7.                In the present case the complainant has heavily relied upon the inspection report Annexure C3 prepared by a committee of officers of Agriculture Department wherein the inspecting team has mentioned that the farmer has sown seeds of VNR-2222 in seven acres of land but in Annexure C4 showing the details qua land, seeds and quantity of seeds etc. but in this document four acres of land has been mentioned in the column of Variety/Area covered = VNR-2222/4 Acre.    Another strange factor which this Forum has noticed that in the bill Annexure  C2 no lot number has been mentioned but in Annexure C3 and Annexure C4 the lot numbers have been mentioned.  As per the version of the complainant he had sown 3 bags in 3 acres of land but in the report Annexure C3 it has been mentioned that the complainant has sown the seed in 7 acres and similarly another part of the report Annexure C4 in column of area covered is sown as 4 acres, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the documents Annexure C3 & Annexure C4 are self-contradictory and are not helpful to the complainant as it appears that the inspecting team might have not visited the spot. Hence, the report Annexure C3 and Annexure C4 cannot look into consideration. If the reports of committee of Agriculture Officers are vanished then there remains nothing on the case file, therefore, there is no need to discuss another points.

8.                          Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case the complainant has not been able to prove his case against the OPs by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 13.11.2017                                     (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member