BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 315 of 2016
Date of Institution : 13.12.2016
Date of Decision : 28.9.2017.
Bhupinder Singh son of Shri Jagdev Singh son of Shri Kehar Singh, resident of vill. Habuana, Tehsil Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Shivam Trading Co. Shop No.35, Mandi Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa through its Proprietor.
2. Jai Shanker Seeds Pvt. Limited, 75 Old Dhan Mandi, First Floor, Sri Ganga Nagar (Manufacturing company and Distributor of the Guar seeds namely HG-365 through its Managing Director/ Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vinod Kamboj, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist and owns and possess about 3½ acres of land. On 7.7.2016 the complainant purchased 20 Kg. guar seeds quality Guar HG-365 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.1300/- vide bill No.530 dated 7.7.2016 who stated it to be sufficient for 3½ acres of land. The op no.1 also fully assured about the originality of the seed and its better result and that he will definitely get the production of 10 quintals per acre. That thereafter the complainant as per the directions of ops and also being an experienced farmer sown the guar seeds in his 3½ acres of land by hiring agricultural labour. The complainant was expecting a very good yield from the said crop but all the dreams of the complainant shattered and he suffered a heavy mental shock when he noticed that there was no fruit/ phalli on the plants having the height of seven feet. The complainant approached the ops and complained about the non growing of the crop which is only due to lower quality of guar seed supplied by the ops and also convened a panchayat of respectable persons and they also confirmed about the lower quality of seed supplied by ops. However, the ops did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant moved an application before the authorities of Agriculture Department and requested for inspection of his fields and accordingly the officers of the Agriculture Department paid visit in the fields of the complainant and assessed the loss to the extent of 100% of crop. The complainant has suffered financial loss of Rs.2,00,000/- approximately on account of loss of crop besides other expenses. The complainant also served a legal notice upon the ops but they failed to redress the grievance of complainant rather op no.1 gave totally false and evasive reply. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a joint written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is bad for non compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant has not furnished report of any expert or laboratory regarding the quality of seeds; that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the inspection report cannot be relied upon on the grounds that the inspection team did not consist of the representative of the seed agency as per the guidelines issued by the Director, Agriculture Haryana vide letter dated 3.1.2002 addressed to all the Deputy Directors, Agriculture Department, Haryana and that the alleged inspection had been conducted in a mechanical way and report is based on visual condition of the crop and no scientific, technical, analytical methods had been applied to determine the quality of the seed. The said inspection report does not contain any identification of the land like killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land which were allegedly inspected by them and it is not mentioned in the inspection report that the seed was defective. Preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, estopopal, no consumer dispute and jurisdiction have also been taken. On merits, it has been submitted that complainant has neither mentioned the square and killa number of his ownership nor has supplied the revenue record of his land. The HG-365 seed is of Ageti variety of seed and is normally sown in second week of June. So the timing of sowing the seed is very important factor for getting better yield. The said seed takes 85-100 days for reaping. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Sahab Ram Member Panchayat Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Sh. Kuldeep Singh Ex.CW3/A, affidavit of Smt. Baljeet Kaur Ex.CW4/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6, photographs Ex.C7, Ex.C8, copy of letter Ex.C9, copy of inspection report Ex.C10, electricity bill Ex.C11, packing cover Ex.C12 and copy of lease agreement Ex.C13. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R2 and copy of lab. report Ex.R3.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The perusal of evidence of the complainant reveal that complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents mentioned in his complaint and he has further relied upon the affidavits of Sahab Ram, Kuldeep Singh and Smt. Baljeet Kaur as Ex.CW2/A, Ex.CW3/A and Ex.CW4/A respectively who have tried to support the version of complainant. The perusal of complaint reveal that the complainant has not specifically mentioned the khasra numbers of 3 ½ acres of agricultural land which was allegedly owned by him. The complainant has also not placed on record any copy of khasra girdawari in support of his claim that he had cultivated guar crop in the land in question. The complainant has only placed on record two photographs Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 showing standing crop but from these photographs, it cannot be presumed that land belongs to the complainant or it is the same land where the complainant sown the guar seed which was purchased by the complainant from op no.1 vide alleged bill Ex.C6.
6. On the other hand, in order to defend the complaint of the complainant, the ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. Vikash Kumar, Proprietor of op no.1 as Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated all the contents made in the written statement. They have also produced copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 as Ex.R2 and copy of laboratory test report of seed in question as Ex.R3 according to which purity of the seed is 99.8%. The complainant has not moved any application to get the sample of the seed tested from approved laboratory. The inspection report of Agricultural Officers Ex.C10 placed on file by the complainant is not admissible in evidence as no representative of the company of seed in question was associated at the time of inspection as per letter dated 3.1.2002. Moreover, no description of the land of the complainant is mentioned in this report. So this inspection report is not helpful to the case of the complainant. So, it appears from the record that complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
7. In view of our above discussion, we are of the considered view that complaint is devoid of any merit and same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own 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 Member President,
Dated:28.9.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
