BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.218 of 2015
Date of Institution : 09.12.2015
Date of Decision : 27.2.2017.
Laxman Ram, aged about 32 years son of Shri Kanshi Ram, resident of village Sukhera Khera, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/S Mehta Beej Bhandar, village Sukhera Khera, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Owner.
2. Hitech Kamboj Seed, Shop No.19, Near New Grain Market, India, District Karnal, through its Manager/ Proprietor/ Partner/ Owner.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA ……………………..PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL….MEMBER.
Present: Smt. Balbir Kaur, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh. Amit Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist and used to cultivate the land on contract basis. He has obtained 8 acres of land on contract from Krishan Layalpuria son of Goma Ram, 7 acres of land from Shri Harpal Singh son of Pritam Singh and 3 acres land from Vishnu son of Bihari Lal. The complainant purchased seeds of paddy for 14 acres of land from opposite party no.1 for an amount of Rs.1800/- vide bill No.763 dated 8.5.2015. It was assured by the op no.1 to the complainant that this seed will give crop of 35 quintal per acre. As per the instructions of ops, the complainant sowed seed in 14 acres of land and taken proper care but inspite of serious efforts of complainant, the growth of the crop remained unequal of two colours due to mix seed and it was clear that op no.1 has not sold the seed of original breed and due to this reason the complainant suffered 50% loss of his crop in 14 acres of land. It is further averred that immediately the complainant made complaint to op no.1 and both the ops visited the fields of complainant and assured for payment of suitable compensation to him but all in vain and they have not paid any compensation to him. Under compelling circumstances, he moved an application to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sirsa narrating the true facts. On the application, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali visited the field of complainant and submitted his report in which 30% loss of crop was assessed and the approximate loss in terms of money comes to about Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant is entitled to recover the said amount alongwith an another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- spent on labour for sowing the crop, fertilizer etc. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 filed written statement and pleaded that answering op sells the branded seeds which were purchased from op no.2 through whole seller and were sold in a sealed and packed condition duly provided with patch number, seal number as well as lot number. The directions to sow the seed are duly provided on the sealed packets, which the consumer is bound to follow. The complainant has alleged to have purchased 30 Kg of pussa 1401 seed, which is at the most can be sowed in three acres of land. The complainant has taken a stand that some of the plants had grown earlier than the others. This is infact a common disease in the paddy crop and cannot be due to any defect in the seeds. The answering op has sold the same seed of same lot to different farmers but there is no complaint from any one. The answering op has never received any such complaint from the complainant, nor any such alleged inspection was made in the presence of answering op. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement submitted that op no.2 is the license holder for manufacturing and selling the paddy seed which has been duly issued by the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency, Karnal. After preparation of the seed, same has been sent to the Haryana State Seed Certification agency for its testing in the lab and after same in the lab and finding it ok in all respect, a batch number has been issued and after that seed has been sold in the market. No other farmer has ever raised any kind of complaint regarding the quality of seed. The complainant is not the consumer of op no.2. The complainant purchased about 40 Kgs. of paddy seed and as per the specification of the Govt. at least 8 Kg. seed is required to be sowed in one acre of land meaning thereby that said seed should have been shown in five acres of land but as per the pleading of complainant, the same was sowed in 14 acres of land which is against the specification of the Government. Hence, it is a sheer negligence and carelessness on the part of complainant himself. No notice of alleged inspection was given to op no.2. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, cash/ credit memo dated 8.5.2015 Ex.C2, attested copy of inspection report Ex.C3, cutting of newspaper Ex.C4, affidavit of Sh. Bhim Sain Ex.C5, affidavit of Sh. Vishnu Arya Ex.C6, affidavit of Sh. Harpal Singh Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of cash/ credit memo dated 21.4.2015 Ex.R2, copy of cash/credit memo dated 6.5.2015 Ex.R3, copy of cash/credit memo dated 8.5.2015 Ex.R4, copy of cash/ credit memo dated 8.5.2015 Ex.R5 and affidavit Ex.RW1/A.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The main dispute in this complaint is that paddy seed sold by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant was defective and due to that seed, he has suffered loss of 30% of crop. The complainant case depends upon the inspection report Ex.C3 of the Agriculture department. We carefully have gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. No sample of seed was sent to the Lab. for analysis. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by them. From report Ex.C3 the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. In an authority of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 it was observed by their Lordship that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant simply on the basis of a self serving affidavit when there is no evidence with respect to the less germination.
7. Further, as per letter of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dated 3.1.2002, issued to all the Deputy Directors in the State, it has been directed by the Director Agriculture that fields of complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/ KVK, HAU. However, no notice was issued to the opposite parties before spot inspection and as such the report is defective one. So, report obtained by complainant without notice to ops cannot be relied upon. 8. Thus, complainant has failed to prove his case and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law. The authority relied upon by learned counsel for complainant in case titled as National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Vs. P.V. Krishna Reedy, 2009 (2) CLT 122 is on different footings. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant 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 after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 27.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
