BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 122 of 2017
Date of Institution : 05.06.2017
Date of Decision : 21.11.2018
Mange Ram aged about 29 years son of Shri Chhabila Ram, resident of village Kagdana, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Mittal Beej Bhandar, village Kagdana Tehsil Nathusari Chopta District Sirsa through its Proprietor.
2. M/s Rama Agro Chemical, 2-3-4, Janta Hospital Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
3. M/s Raasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. C & FA Sidhi Vinayak Tradings 4th Miles Stone, Bapu Asa Ram Ashram Marg Sirsa Road, Hisar.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………….. PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Surinder Sihag, proxy counsel for Sh. K.R. Pilania, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.K. Singla, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist by profession. The parents of complainant are having agricultural land in village Kagdana which the complainant used to cultivate. The complainant has sown BT cotton crop in two acres of land. The complainant is a very hard working person and he earns high yields from his crops every year. It is further averred that op no.1 runs a shop under the name and style M/s Mittal Beej Bhandar at village Kagdana. Complainant visited the shop of op no.1 on 9.5.2016 and he showed his desire to purchase BT cotton seeds from op no.1. The op no.1 had assured the complainant that RCH- 650 is having good quality of seeds and if the same is used the same will give good yields. On the assurance of op no.1, the complainant purchased four packets of RCH 650 vide bill No.1571 dated 9.5.2016 and op no.1 had charged an amount of Rs.3200/- from the complainant. The complainant sowed the said seeds in his two acres of land comprised in Sq. No.17 Killa No.9 & 10 Khewat No.122, Khatuni No.143. That after sowing the said crop in his agricultural land, the complainant noticed that his entire crop has been totally damaged and the complainant immediately approached the op no.1 and brought the above facts into his knowledge. The op no.1 told the complainant that it is not a matter of worry and advised him to wait with the assurance that with the passage of time, the complainant shall definitely receive high yields but no improvement was seen and the damage of crop kept on increasing day by day. It is further averred that after that the complainant again visited the shop of op no.1 and reported him the damages and symptoms of his crop. The complainant requested op no.1 to compensate him accordingly on which the op no.1 admitted his fault and assured that he will help the complainant as much as possible. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant moved an application dated 1.9.2016 to the agriculture department to examine his crops. On that application, the officials and doctors of agriculture department visited the land of complainant and examined his crop. The officials of agriculture department after careful examination and observation, prepared and issued a report dated 20.9.2016 and it was reported that 50% of the plants of cotton crop have no flowers (Tinde). The cotton crop yielded 50% less than the yields received by complainant averagely. Thereafter, the complainant contacted op no.1 and requested him to compensate him accordingly but the op no.1 flatly refused to extend any help towards the complainant. That in this manner, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.1,00,000/- and besides that complainant has already spent amount of Rs.20,000/- on irrigation, seeds, cultivation and labour etc. He has also faced great mental tension, harassment and inconvenience due to act of ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; suppression of true and material facts; estoppal; non joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that the distributor and manufacturer of the seeds in question have not been impleaded as parties to the present complaint. The op no.1 purchased the seeds from M/s Rama Agro Chemicals, 2-3-4, Janta Hospital road, Sirsa vide bill No.37047 dated 21.4.2016 which purchased the same from the manufacturing company Rassi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the subject matter of present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that op no.1 sold the seeds in sealed and packed packets as received from the distributor. The op did not give any alleged assurance to the complainant as alleged. This is all made-up and concocted story of the complainant and there is no an iota of truth in the same. The complainant had purchased the seed from the op of his own and he demanded the specific seed with specific brand name. It is further submitted that answering op is a licence holder of the seeds issued by the Licensing Authority of Govt. of Haryana vide License No.SRS/1118, which is valid up to 12.7.2019. The complainant never reported any alleged damage to his crop. Since complainant never approached the op, so the question of giving him any instructions by the op does not arise. It is wrong that the op admitted his fault and gave any assurance. 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, if any prepared by the officials and doctors of agriculture department has not been supplied to the op. The complainant has not mentioned the kind of soil in which he allegedly sowed the seeds. The seeds manufactured by the manufacturing company was of high quality and high standard and the same was sold in the sealed and packed condition by op. There was no defect in the seed sold to the complainant. The variation of the crop cannot be attributed to the seeds, rather there are other relevant factors. The alleged spot inspection report by the officer of the agriculture department is not a scientific and technical report. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite service and therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
4. On being impleaded, opposite party no.3 appeared and filed reply to the effect that complaint in hand is not maintainable in the present form as no defect in the seed is proved in the present complaint. In the spot inspection report, they have not mentioned the killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land, which was inspected by the officers of Agriculture department. The officer/ official of the agriculture department has not given any finding that the alleged loss has been suffered by the complainant due to quality of seed. From the report, it is no where clarified that the inspection was done on the land in which the present complainant used the seed. It is further submitted that the alleged inspection report 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 spot inspection report is no report in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be ignored. It is further 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. about the quality of the seeds. Other preliminary objections regarding locus standi, suppression of material facts and jurisdiction have also been taken. It is further submitted that answering op manufactures, supplies and markets high quality and high standard seeds and enjoys high respect and reputation for the seeds produced by answering op. 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 complainant at no point of time reported any defect in the seeds to the answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1/A and copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of jamabandi for year 2012-2013 Ex.C3, khasra girdawari Ex.C4, copy of letter dated 20.9.2016 Ex.C5 and copy of inspection report Ex.C6 and copy of application dated 1.9.2016 Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Prem Sukh, sole proprietor Ex.R1, copies of licence Ex.R2 and Ex.R3, copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.R4 and copy of entry of stock register Ex.R5, copy of bill dated 9.5.2016 Ex.R6, copy of invoice Ex.R7. OP no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Tyagi, Area Sales Manager Ex.R8, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R9 and copy of entry of stock register Ex.R10.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. Learned proxy counsel for Sh. K.R. Pilania, ld. counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of the complainant that complainant had purchased BT cotton seeds for two acres of land from opposite party no.1 on payment of Rs.3200/- which he had sown in two acres of land but the said seed purchased by complainant did not grow properly. The complainant has proved less growth of the plants as well as flowers by placing on record report of the officers of Agriculture Department who made the inspection and the complainant is entitled to compensation for the loss of his crop.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 3 have contended that complainant has not placed on record any proof of his ownership of the land where he has allegedly sown the seed. He has not placed on record any copy of jamabandi and girdawari in his favour qua his ownership and possession of the land. The complainant has relied upon the report of the agriculture department in which it has not been mentioned that less crop was due to inferior quality of the seed. No intimation was given to the ops by the inspecting staff of the agriculture department. The report Ex.C6 was prepared at their back and same is not binding on the rights of the ops and made prayer for dismissal of the complaint.
9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
10. Admittedly, the complainant purchased seed in question from opposite party no.1 vide bill Ex.C2. As per contention of the complainant he had sown this seed in agricultural land measuring 16 kanal comprised in rectangle No.17 Killa No.9 and 10. But the perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that complainant has not placed on record any copy of jamabandi and khasra girdawari in support of his claim being owner or in possession of the said land. The complainant has relied upon the report of agriculture department Ex.C6 in which it has been reported that “in six canal of land of Narma crop, the heights of plants were about 4.5-5 feet and on the plants, flowers, bogi and tinde were normal whereas in 10 kanal of land, the heights of plants were about 6 to 6.5 feet but neither there were any flowers, bogi nor there were any tindas. During the inspection of the field, it was found that there was possibility of about 45-50% loss of Narma crop in two acres of land.” This report further reveals that officers of agriculture department have not uttered even a single word qua quality of the seed which was purchased by the complainant nor they have mentioned that less crop is due to inferior quality of the seed used by the complainant. No doubt, agriculture department had made demand of the sample of the seed and op no.1 gave a reply that there is no stock of the seed and they will obtain the seed from the company. The complainant has not placed on record any other document from which it could be presumed that thereafter agriculture department made any effort to get sample of the seed from the distributor or the manufacturer of the seed who have been impleaded as ops no.2 and 3. Moreover, the agriculture department has not mentioned the khasra number and killa number in their report which they inspected during the course of inspection. Moreover, they have not assigned the reason of the less crop. So on the basis of this report, it cannot be presumed that less crop was due to inferior quality of the seed used by the complainant and reason of less crop may be due to other factors i.e. inferior quality of the land, environment condition, mode of irrigation and attack of insects.
11. In view of the above, it appears that complainant has failed to prove his complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such same is devoid of merits. 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:21.11.2018.
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
