DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 20 of 15-01-2008<br /> Decided on : 12-03-2008 <br /> <br /> Yadwinder Singh S/o Jagdev Singh, R/o Village Mian, Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Modern Agro Seed Company, Anaj Mandi, Hazi Rattan Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.<br /> 2.M/s. Amar Bio-tech Ltd., SCF 83, Phase-I, Model Town, Bathinda through its Area Manager.<br /> 3.The Chief Agriculture Officer, Dabwali Road, Bathinda.<br /> 4.The Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda. <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Lakhbir singh, President<br /> Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Rajan Garg, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. R K Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.<br /> Opposite parties No. 3 & 4 exparte.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as “Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to pay him Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation; Rs. 21,600/- as loss; Rs. 4500/- as cost of seeds and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the complaint i.e. Rs. 1,51,000/- in all.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant may be stated as under :-<br /> Father of the complainant namely Jagdev Singh S/o Inder Singh is owner in possession of land measuring 37 Kanal 11 Marla situated in the revenue limits of Village Mian, Tehsil & District Bathinda. Complainant had purchased 6 packets of cotton seeds i.e. 2 packets of Bool Guard-BT-011495 vide bill No. 760 dated 19.5.07 and four other packets vide bill No. 780 dated 19.5.07 from opposite party No. 1. Cotton seeds were prepared and marked by opposite party No. 2. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 had assured that seeds were of best quality and that they would yield produce upto 12 Qntls per acre. Cotton seeds were sown in the land measuring 24 Kanal after systematically preparing land for production of American Cotton Crop (Narma) and as per the specifications. Despite best agricultural management, crop did not come up well and he sustained huge loss. Cotton (Narma) seeds were of poor quality. An application was submitted to opposite party No. 4 on 22-10-07 which was marked for inquiry and report to opposite party No. 3. After thorough inspection report was submitted in the month of December, 2007. He alleges that he has suffered loss of about Rs. 7200/- per acre i.e. Rs. 21,600/- besides price of his produce for which cotton seeds were purchased. He got served legal notice upon opposite parties No. 1 & 2 through his counsel but no action was taken. He has also undergone mental tension and agony. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their separate versions by way of submitting replies of the complaint taking almost similar pleas. Preliminary objections taken by them are that complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct; he has no cause of action; he is guilty of concealment of relevant and material facts from this Forum; complaint has been filed just to harass them and to have undue and wrongful gain; seeds cannot be said to be defective without proper analysis from recognised Government Laboratory and he has not sought the opinion of any expert to this effect. On merits, they do not specifically admit that the father of the complainant is the owner of agricultural land. There is no denial about the purchase of six packets of cotton seeds by the complainant. They deny that the assurance was given to the complainant about the quality of the seeds. Yield is not dependent upon the seeds but upon several other factors which are equally responsible. They are like agriculture practice, application of seed rate, climatic condition, water intervals, sowing of seeds in depth, attack of pests and diseases, fertilizers/pesticides dosages, soil and water etc. No instructions/guidelines were given by them to the complainant for sowing the seeds. Bool Guard BT Cotton Seeds are hy-brid seeds and skilled labour and all other precautions like water and condition of soil are required to be taken at the time of sowing. Complainant has not stated that these precautions were taken. They admit the service of legal notice. According to them, cotton seeds sold were of good quality.<br /> 4. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties No. 3 & 4. Opposite party No. 3 refused to accept service and opposite party No. 4 was served. They did not come to contest the complaint. Accordingly, they have been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-9), photocopy of Jamabandi for the Year 2003-2004 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of bill No. 780 dated 19.5.07 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of bill No. 779 dated 24.5.07 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of application dated 22.10.07 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of report dated 5.12.07 of Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda (Ex. C-5), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-6), photocopy of postal receipts (Ex. C-7) and photocopy of A.D. (Ex. C-8).<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite parties two affidavits Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2 of S/Sh. Suresh Kumar, Proprietor of opposite party No. 1 and Vijay Kumar, authorised signatory of opposite party No. 2 respectively have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 8. First argument pressed into service by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that complainant is not consumer as the land in which cotton crop is alleged to have been sown belongs to his father as per copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2003-2004. This argument is not tenable. Admittedly cotton seeds were purchased by the complainant. Copy of the receipts regarding purchase of the seeds are Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3. Complainant alleges that seeds were sub standard and of poor quality and on that account cotton crop did not come up well and he sustained huge loss. Moreover, the land belongs to the father of the complainant. He could sow cotton seeds in the land of his father. He did avail the services of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for consideration by way of purchasing the seeds which he alleges were of sub-standard and poor quality. In these circumstances, we are of the view that complainant certainly falls within the purview of the definition of consumer as has been given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vehementally argued that complainant did not get the alleged defective seeds analysed from any recognised Laboratory and as such, there is contravention of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. There is substance in this argument. If any part of the cotton seeds were with the complainant, he could produce them before the Forum for getting them analysed from some appropriate Laboratory or he could move this Forum for seeking direction to opposite party No. 2 to produce the cotton seeds of the same batch and quality which were purchased by him so that they could be got analysed from Laboratory.<br /> 10. Onus to prove the averments in the complaint is upon the complainant. He is required to establish them by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant alleges in para No. 5 of the complaint that cotton/narma crop (wrongly written as wheat) did not come up well and on that account he sustained huge loss. In our view, complaint is vague. He has not explained as to how the crop did not come up well. An application was moved by him to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, copy of which is Ex. C-4. In the application, he alleged that plants of the American Cotton crop did not gain proper height and that they did not bear sufficient flowers and bolls. In support of his version, complainant has placed on record his affidavit and the copy of report of Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda which are Ex. C-9 and Ex. C-5 respectively. So far as affidavit Ex. C-9 is concerned, that stands amply rebutted with the affidavit of S/Sh. Suresh Kumar and Vijay Kumar which are Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2 respectively. Report of Chief Agriculture Officer reveals that American Cotton Crop sown by the complainant was inspected by Sh. Malkit Singh, Block Agriculture Officer and he had submitted his report. Copy of the report of Sh. Malkit Singh has not been placed and proved on record. His affidavit could be brought by the complainant and that has not been produced. In our view, the report of Chief Agriculture Officer is not the primary evidence. Rather it is secondary evidence as it is based on the report of Sh. Malkit Singh which is not on the record. Moreover, it is against the averments of the complainant. At the risk of repetition it is again mentioned that his allegation is that crop did not come up well. In the application moved to the Deputy Commissioner, he alleges that crop did not gain proper height and bear flowers and bolls. To the contrary, report is that due to technical defect the seeds had inadequate germination due to which there remained more distance between one plant to another. Even if the report is considered for arguments sake, technical defect in the seeds has not been disclosed by the Chief Agriculture Officer. No literature has been mentioned by him in the report copy of which is Ex. C-5 that on account of technical defect (which has not been disclosed), there can be more distance among cotton plants and that they cannot gain sufficient height. Basis of the criteria of 75 to 80% loss assessed by Chief Agriculture Officer has not been disclosed. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 argued that American Cotton Crop should be sown upto the end of April. In this case, seeds were purchased on 19.5.07. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that there may be several other reasons due to which plants of cotton crop may not gain proper height and may not bear flowers and bolls. They can be poor quality of land, improper use of fertilizers/insecticides, poor quality of fertilizers/insecticides, improper watering of the crop, sowing of the seeds in depth, attack of pests and diseases etc. There is nothing in the report of the Chief Agriculture Officer that the quality of land where the American Cotton Crop was sown was good for it and complainant had taken all the requisite precautions for getting the good produce and insecticides and pesticides of standard qualities were used and that too in the prescribed manner.<br /> 11. If the report of Chief Agriculture Officer is taken as it is, the loss is to the tune of 75 to 80%. Complainant alleges that the yield should have been 12 Qntls per acre. No document has been placed on the file by the complainant that the average yield in the block in which the land of his father is situated was 12 Qntls per acre. According to Ex. C-5, the yield from the crop was 20 to 25%. Complainant must have sold the cotton/narma somewhere. He could produce the record to this effect before this Forum that less cotton/narma was sold due to the fact that there was less yield. Evidence to his fact is lacking.<br /> 12. From an over all assessment of the facts, circumstances and the evidence discussed above, we hold that the evidence led by the complainant does not establish deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2.<br /> 13. In the result, complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 12-03-2008 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member