BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 100 of 2020
Date of Institution : 18.02.2020
Date of Decision : 28.02.2024.
Mangtu Ram son of Shri Devi Ram, resident of H. No. 295, village Mithanpur (112), Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Neemla Trading Company & Pesticides, Shop No. 104-B, New Anaj Mandi, Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
2. Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd., 8-2-277/45, First Floor UBI Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
BEFORE: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR……….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………….. MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Mukesh Arya, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and father of complainant owns and possessed his agriculture land in village Mithanpura, District Sirsa. That complainant in order to sow cotton crop in his agriculture land purchased three packets of Ryder PCH 9609 BG-II of Narma Seed for Rs.2190/- vide invoice no. 570 dated 14.05.2019 from op no.1 after every type of assurances given by op no.1 about good quality of seed. The family of complainant is entirely dependent upon agricultural income of complainant. It is further averred that upon sowing the Narma crop, it was observed that growth of aforesaid crop did not come up normally as it should have been. Consequently, on approach to the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, an inspection report was prepared by the aforesaid officer showing the poor growth in the aforesaid crop due to sowing of seeds predicting poor production in the aforesaid land. That complainant made complaint about the fault in the seeds to the op no.1, but he put the matter off on one or other pretext and at last flatly refused to entertain any of the complaint. That Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Sirsa vide memo no. 2862 dated 0912.2019 submitted the loss of crop of complainant to the extent of 25-30% and in this manner, the complainant suffered loss of around Rs.80,000/- being damage of 40% of Narma crop sown by complainant and act and conduct of the ops comes under the ambit of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as no defect in the seed is proved in the present complaint. In the spot inspection report, the Agricultural Officers have not mentioned the killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land which was inspected by them and in the report it is alleged that field of Mangtu Ram was inspected whereas he does not own or possess any landed property in the village. Moreover, 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 complainant used the seed and also the kind and nature of soil has also not been mentioned in the inspection report. The date of alleged inspection of the spot has also not been mentioned in the report. So, the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further submitted that no notice or intimation of any alleged spot inspection was given to the ops and they were not joined/ associated in the alleged inspection of the spot. Thus, the said spot inspection report appears to be manipulated one. That alleged 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 03.01.2022 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana. So, the alleged spot inspection report is no report in the eyes of law and 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. test report about the quality of the seeds. Other preliminary objections regarding cause of action, suppression of true and material acts, estoppal and jurisdiction are also taken. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
5. On the other hand ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajender Kumar, proprietor of op no.1 as Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. Ranvir Singh, Assistant Area Manager as Ex.R2 and copy of letter dated 03.01.2002 Ex.R3.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. Admittedly on 14.05.2019 the complainant had purchased three packets of cotton seed from op no.1 for an amount of Rs.2190/- which fact is also evident from bill Ex.C4 and said seed is manufactured by op no.2 in which complainant has alleged defect as growth of the plants was not normal. As per letter dated 03.01.2002 of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula written to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the Haryana State, copy of which is placed on file by ops as Ex.R3, the fields of 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, from the inspection report placed on file by complainant alongwith letter of SDAO, Sirsa Ex.C1, it is evident that no notice of the inspection was ever given to the ops and therefore, inspection was conducted in absence of the ops. Further more, no Scientist from any of above said institutions was associated in the inspection team and only one officer of Agriculture Department i.e. SDAO, Sirsa inspected the field of complainant and submitted his report which is in contravention of above said letter dated 03.01.2002. Even the report is silent about the date and month of the inspection. So, the inspection report itself is defective. Moreover, in the report itself, it has been reported that there are chances of loss of 25-30% to the crop and good germination and good yield depends upon so many factors like quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer and pesticides and weather conditions and as such it cannot be said at all that the reason of loss of crop was only due to defective seed supplied by the ops. Even in the report which itself is defective, it is no where mentioned that reason of loss of crop was only due to supply of defective seeds by the ops. So, the complainant has failed to prove on record that ops have supplied misbranded and substandard quality of the seeds to him.
8. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 28.02.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
