BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.188 of 2015
Date of Institution : 29.10.2015
Date of Decision : 04.05.2017.
Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Gobind Ram, resident of Abbobshahar, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Radhey Sham & Sons, Sangaria Road, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Authorized person.
2. Hi Tech Kamboj Seeds, Shop No.19, Opposite New Grain Market Indri, District Karnal (Haryana) through its Prop/ Partner/ authorized person.
3. M/s Durga Beej Bhandar Shop No.52, New Subji Mandi, Opposite PNB, Panipat, distributor of respondent no.2 i.e. manufacturing company.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ……..PRESIDING MEMBER
SH.MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Bhupinder Khattar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. K.K. Sukhija, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Naresh Jayant, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist and he was in need of seed for his 13 acres 4 kanal land, so he approached to the shop of op no.1 and purchased 50 Kgs. of paddy seed bearing lot No.Oct-14-07-320-17 variety PB-6 (PUSA-1401) vide bill No.3915 dated 4.5.2015 and paid an amount of Rs.3000/- to the op no.1. The op no.1 had assured him that seed is of a very good quality and is of reputed company. The complainant sowed said seed in his 13 acres 4 kanal land but at the time of growth of the plant, he came to know that above said seed was mixed with different kind of seeds due to which every plant and their growth was of different kind due to duplicate seed provided by op no.1. The complainant immediately approached op no.1 but op no.1 stated that he cannot do anything in this regard and forcibly ousted him from his shop. It is further averred that thereafter, he moved an application to the Deputy Agriculture Director, Sirsa to inspect his fields who inspected the spot and submitted report regarding loss of 25% to 30 % to the complainant due to duplicate seed sold to him. In fact the actual loss of the crop of complainant is more than 50% and he has suffered loss of Rs.five lacs and harassment etc. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections but the sale of the seed in question to the complainant is admitted. It has been submitted that seed was sold in the packed condition. As per norms, the complainant was required to sow at least six Kg. seeds per acre but he has apparently not done so. The so called report has been falsely obtained in connivance with the officials of the Agriculture Department. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. OP no.2 in its separate written statement has replied that op no.2 is the licence holder, manufacturing and selling the paddy seed which has been duly issued by the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency, Karnal. The op no.2 has been manufacturing the seed and same is being manufactured, prepared and processed in the firm of op no.2. After preparation of the seed, same has been sent to the Haryana State Seed Certification agency for its testing in the lab. and after testing same it in the lab. and finding it OK in all respect, a batch number has been issued by agency and after that said seed has been sold in the market. There is huge quantity of seed in one batch and entire seed has been sold to various farmers but no one has ever raised any kind of complaint regarding the quality and mixing of the seed. The germination of seed depends upon the various factors. 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 sowed in 6¼ acres of land but complainant has stated that same was sowed in 13 acres 4 kanals of land which is against the specification of the Government. It has been further submitted that no notice of alleged inspection was given to op no.2 and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
4. OP no.3 in its separate written statement took certain preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant has not given details of the square and killa numbers, kind and location of his land. He has also not furnished other details of kind of soil, moisture content in the soil, climatic conditions in the region and source of irrigation etc. which are the major factors for growing the crops. The complainant at no point of time reported any alleged defect in the seed to the answering op. The answering op has no knowledge and notice of alleged spot inspection by the officers of Agriculture Department as the answering op was never given any notice for the same nor was joined in the alleged spot inspection.
5. In evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1, copy of letter dated 11.9.2015 Ex.C1, copy of inspection report Ex.C2, copy of application Ex.C3 and copy of cash/credit memo Ex.C4. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, affidavit Ex.RW1, copy of bill Ex.R2 and affidavit Ex.R3.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. The main dispute in this complaint is that paddy seed sold by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant was of mixed quality and due to duplicate seed, he has suffered loss of 50% of crop. The complainant case depends upon the inspection report Ex.C2 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.C2 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. The complainant has also not produced khasra girdawari to prove that at the relevant time paddy seed was sown by him in his fields. He has also not produced J form on the file to prove the exact loss of paddy crop to him.
8. 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. 9. Thus, complainant has failed to prove his case and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law. 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. Presiding Member,
Dated: 04.5.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
