Haryana

Jind

60/14

Suraj Mal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Saini Beej Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Shiv Kumar Sharma

20 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 60 of 2014

   Date of Institution: 30.5.3014

   Date of final order: 20.2.2015

Suraj Mal s/o Sh. Maan Singh r/o village Kithana, Tehsil and District Kaithal.  

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. M/s Saini Beej Bhandar near S.D. High School, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind through its proprietor.
2. Kaveri Seed Company Ltd. 513-B,5^th floor, Minarva Complex, S.D. road, Secunderabad-500003 through its Managing Director.

                                                         …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member

                              

Present: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. Harbaj Saini Adv. for opposite parties No.1&2.

         

ORDER:

            The brief facts in the complaint are that  the complainant is an agriculturist by profession  and had purchased 12 packets of  Kaveri III Gawar Seed for a sum of Rs.6840/- vide bill No.1615 dated 5.6.2013 from opposite party No.1, which is manufactured by opposite party No.2. The complainant has taken 6 acres of land on lease @ Rs.25,000/- per acre from Jai Pal Ex. Sarpanch s/o Mange Ram.  At the time of purchase of seeds, the opposite party No.1 gave full

                        Suraj Mal Vs. M/s Saini Beej etc.

                                     …2…  

guarantee of seeds. The complainant sown the above said seeds in his 12 acres of land. The complainant was found less fruits (Falli) in gwar crop due to reason that the seed was substandard seed. Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1  and  informed about less fruit in gwar crop and sub-standard quality of seeds and requested him  to give a compensation but the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed on the request of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal for inspection of his field. On the request of the complainant, Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal constituted a team of experts of Agriculture Department who inspected the field of the complainant on 14.10.2013 and found 5%to 10% fruit balls(Falli) and assessed loss in gwar crop about 90-95%.  The loss suffered by the complainant due to supply of mixed, low quality, sub standard variety of gwar seeds.  Due to supply of inferior quality of gwar  seeds, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.2,88,000/-. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- as loss of crops as well as to pay a sum of  Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the  written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; the complainant has no  locus-standi to file the present complaint  and the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and

                        Suraj Mal Vs. M/s Saini Beej etc.

                                     …3…  

conduct. On merits, it is contended that  the official of Agriculture Department have no authority to inspected the field of  complainant. If there is any complaint regarding quality of poor seed, then field of the complainant’s farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of agriculture department and one representative of concerned seed agency and scientists. No notice prior to inspection the field of complainant was given  by the officers of Agriculture Department to the   answering  opposite parties.  No sample of the seeds has been preserved by the complainant to prove  that the sold seeds was mixture one. No batch number and lot number were mentioned by the complainant in his complaint. All the other allegations have been denied by the  opposite parties. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.

3.     In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of  cash memo Ex. C-2, copy of application Ex. C-3,  copy of inspection report Ex. C-4, copy of jamabandi Ex. C-5 and  statement of Jai Pal Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the  affidavit of  Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Regional Manager Ex. OP-1, copy of  Laboratory Analysis report  Ex. OP-2 and OP-3 and copy of letter dated 29.10.2013 Ex. OP-4and closed the evidence. 

4.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant had purchased 12 packets of Kaveri III Gawar seed for a sum of Rs.6,840/-

                        Suraj Mal Vs. M/s Saini Beej etc.

                                     …4…  

vide bill No.1615 dated 5.6.2013 from opposite party No.1 Ex. C-2, the opposite party No.2 is manufacturer of the above said seed. The complainant had taken 6 acres of land on lease @ Rs.25,000/- per acre from Jai Pal s/o Mange Ram Ex. C-6. The above said seed was sown by the complainant in his 12 acres of land but the complainant was found less fruits (Falli) in gawar crop due to reason that the seed was sub-standard seed. The complainant moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal for inspection of his field, upon which; expert team of Agriculture Department inspected the field of the complainant on 14.10.2013 and found 5% to 10% fruit balls (Falli) and assessed loss in gawar crop about 90-95% Ex. C-4. Due to supply of inferior quality of gawar seed, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.2,88,000/-. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged.

5.     On the other hand, the opposite parties have averred that no notice prior to inspection the field of complainant was given by the officers of Agriculture Department to the answering opposite parties. The officers of Agriculture Department have no authority to inspect the field of farmers regarding any complaint of poor quality seed. If there is any complaint, regarding quality of poor seed, then field of the complainant farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department and one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist and report will be submitted immediately after inspection to the Director of Agriculture Department. In this complaint, no inspection was carried out by the

                        Suraj Mal Vs. M/s Saini Beej etc.

                                     …5…  

authorized committee. No batch number and lot number was mentioned by the complainant in his complaint.

6.     Except for producing the report of the expert team of Agriculture Department, complainant did not lead any evidence to prove that the seeds sold to him were defective. The inspection report of Agriculture Department does not mention that the seeds supplied were of inferior quality. There is no evidence what-so-ever on record to show that there was any genetic impurity in the seeds supplied by the opposite parties. It cannot be disputed that germination of seed depends on various agro climatic conditions, type of soil, water, irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients and use of proper fertilizers. Thus in the absence of any cogent evidence it cannot be said that the seed sold by the opposite parties to the complainant was inferior quality.

7.     In view of the above said reasons no deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.  Parties will bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 20.2.2015

                                                                 President,

          Member                         District Consumer Disputes                                                                  Redressal Forum, Jind