DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 354 of 04-06-2014

Decided on 25-08-2015

Ishar Singh aged about 45 years S/o Sh. Balbir Singh R/o Village Hassu, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.

Bassawa Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o Sh. Budh Singh, R/o Malkana, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

…...Complainants

Versus

M/s. Shriram Fertilizers and Chemicals, Kirti Mahal, 19 Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110 008, through its Managing Director

M/s. Shriram Bioseed Genetics, Plot No. 206, Road No. 14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033 (Andhra Pradesh) through its Managing Director

M/s. Amar Biotech Limited, Hyderabad 6-2-913-914, Ist Floor, Progressive Towerz, Khratabad, Hyderabad 500 034 through its Managing Director

M/s. Duni Chand Faquir Chand, Wholesale and Retail Pesticides and Seeds Merchants, Raman – 151 301, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, through its Prop./Partner

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Present :

For the Complainants : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for complainants.

For the opposite parties : Sh. Neeraj Maheshwary, counsel for OPs No. 1 &2.

Sh. Varun Gupta, counsel for OP No. 3

Sh. Ashok Gupta counsel for OP No. 4.

O R D E R

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

This complaint has been filed by Ishar Singh and Basawa Singh complainants under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against M/s. Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals and others (here-in-after referred as “opposite parties').

Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are the manufacturer of seeds and sell their products all over India through their dealers/shopkeepers. The opposite party No. 4 is the dealer and sells the products of opposite parties No. 1 to 3. The opposite parties claim their products of best quality and allured the general public for their purchase. The complainants are agriculturists and having about 19 acres of land at Village Hassu, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. Some land is owned by the complainants and some land is being taken by them on theka basis jointly.

It is pleaded that complainants had to sow cotton crops in their fields, so they approached opposite party No. 4 for purchase of cotton seeds. The opposite party No. 4 allured the complainants that the seeds manufactured by opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are of best quality and the yield would be maximum. On the assurance given by opposite party No. 4 with regard to quality of seeds and produce, the complainants on 22-4-2013 purchased 20 packets of seeds of cotton of variety known as 6488 vide invoice No. 7820 in the name of complainant No. 2 from opposite party No. 3 manufactured and marketed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. On 6-5-13 complainants purchased 6 packets each of cotton seeds of variety known as 6588 and 6488 manufactured and marketed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and 2 packets of variety known as Om3g manufactured by opposite party No. 3 vide invoice No. 8150. Again on 13-5-2013 complainants purchased 4 packets of cotton seeds of variety known as 6588 vide invoice No. 8468 from opposite party No. 4 in the name of complainant No. 1 manufactured and marketed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for sowing the same in their fields, situated at village Hassu, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.

It is further pleaded that complainants sown these cotton seeds manufactured by opposite party No. 3 in their one acre of land and other seeds manufactured by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in their 18 acres of land, situated at Village Hassu, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. As per instructions of opposite party No. 4, the complainants also put fertilizer in the fields and also sprinkled the recommended pesticides to get full growth and yield of cotton crop.

It is alleged that there was negligible growth in the cotton crops. The complainants contacted opposite party No. 4 who in turn assured the complainants that the matter will be reported to opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and their representative can only tell the reason for the same. Sometimes later on, the representative of the opposite parties visited the fields of complainants and inspected the crops of cotton, the growth of which was negligible due to spurious quality of seeds so sold by the opposite parties to complainant. The loss to the crop was to the extent of 60-65% in 19 acres of land where the seeds of opposite parties were sown. The complainant also filed complaint with the Agriculture Officer, Bathinda. However, the seeds of cotton crops were sown at Village Hassu, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. As such, the officials of the office of Agriculture Officer told the complainants that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of Agriculture Department, Sirsa, so the matter will be referred to Sirsa for reporting the loss caused to complainants. The officials from the office of Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Dabwali visited the fields of the complainants and after spot inspection, they assessed the loss to the crops of complainants to the extent of 60-65% in 19 acres of land of complainants.

It is further pleaded that in the previous year, there was good crop in the fields of complainants, but due to spurious seeds sold by opposite parties, the cotton crops of complainants ruined/damaged to the great extent. The complainants assessed the loss to their cotton crops worth more than Rs. 6,50,000/- as value of crop only. The complainants have also spent more than Rs. 2.00 lacs on pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation and labour etc., The complainants also suffered loss of lease money of Rs. 1,50,000/- of land which they had taken on theka basis.

It is alleged that loss has been occasioned to the complainants due to sale of adulterated seeds by the opposite parties. As such, the complainants went to the shop of opposite party No. 4 and brought to their knowledge the loss of cotton crop, but the opposite party No. 4 flatly refused to attend the complainants. It is also pleaded that complainants approached the opposite parties many times and requested them to indemnify them and pay the loss caused to their crops and also compensate them for harassment, but till date, opposite parties failed to pay any heed to the complainants. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

It is also pleaded that previously, the complainants have filed complaint. The opposite parties took objection that necessary permission to file joint complaint has not been obtained from the Forum, as such the same was withdrawn on 30-05-2014 with permission to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action after obtaining permission of this Forum, to file joint complaint by both the complainants.

On this backdrop of facts, the complainants have filed this complaint and prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10.00 Lacs on account of loss suffered to their cotton crops due to spurious seeds; Rs. 5.00 Lacs as damages on account of harassment and mental tension and any other additional or alternative relief to which they are found entitled.

Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through respective counsels. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their joint written version wherein it is pleaded that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are well reputed and renowned companies all over India. These are research based company. These have been in business of seeds, pesticides, fertilizers and other agriculture products since many years. They deal in different varieties of seeds i.e. paddy, cotton, gawar etc., and are appreciated by farmers all over the country for good yield of their products. It always deals in approved varieties of seeds and introduces the seeds in the market for sale, after proper prescribed trial and experimentation and after approval and proper permission given by concerned government and concerned department. There is no chance of any complaint regarding the yield and quality of seeds.

The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have raised preliminary objections that complainants have been doing farming to sell their crops in the market, so they are not covered under the definition of consumer as per 'Act'; That complainants have no locus standi as they are not consumer. That the complaint is not consumer dispute as defined u/s 2(1)(e) of 'Act'; Gomplicated questions of law and facts are involved in the matter which requires voluminous evidence for properly adjudicating the matter, hence matter should be decided by civil court;That present complaint is baseless and flagrant as the allegations made are not based on scientific or laboratory tests and complaint is abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail the opposite parties. That the complainant purchased the said seeds, if at all, for commercial purpose, as such it does not fall within the ambit of 'Act'; the complainants have not produced proper and documentary and other evidence, so complaint is frivolous;That there is no deficiency in service ; complaint has been filed just to blackmail the answering opposite parties and complainants have not come to this Forum with clean hands; That complainants never suffered any loss on the part of the opposite parties. That the answering opposite parties have no control over the use of said seeds after the sale which have been sown in the fields or not, thus answering opposite parties cannot be held liable for any such claim. That the alleged report by the concerned officer is prepared as per the connivance of the complainants and not as per the actual position at the spot; the said report is false and frivolous; it is against the rule of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the answering opposite parties. That the seed manufactured and sold by opposite parties is not of spurious, inferior and mixed quality; it may be due to other reasons except seeds. That the complainants gave no detail of record of the alleged amount and complainants are estopped from filing the complaint by their own act and conduct. That the report of Agriculture Development Officer is one sided and the yield mentioned by him is also wrong because this point is cleared by Punjab Agriculture University in its book Package and practice Kharif 2013. It is also alleged that Agriculture Development Officer has not reported as per Seed Act and Section 23-A is also reproduced by the opposite parties.

On merits, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 controverted all the material averments and reiterated their stand as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above. It is also mentioned that crop of cotton depends on many reasons such as :

( a) - Wilting of cotton crop due to moisture stress or draught during fruiting stage.

( b) - Imbalance nutrition.

(c) - High temperature stress.

(d)- Light textured/sandy soils, specifically under early sowing

(e)- Presence of hard paw/layer in the root zone of crop/non-leveling the farm/land.

(f) - Continuous stagnation of water in the field for longer period.

(g) - Wrong time for sowing the crop.

(h) - Natural calamities and uncertain contingencies e.g. heavy rains, flood, storms etc.,

(i) - Carelessness in handling the crop as non spraying of insecticides, pesticides, fertilizers and other material for the good growth of the crops.

The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have denied all the material averments and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

The opposite party No. 3 in its written version also raised legal objections that complainants are barred from filing the complaint by their act and conduct; complainants have no cause of action to file the present complaint as they are not consumers ; That complainants are guilty of concealment of material and relevant facts from this forum; That complaint has been filed just to cause unwarranted harassment to opposite party. That even other wise no seed can be proved defective without proper analysis through a government recognized laboratory and complainants have not taken the opinion of any expert nor has consulted expert before sowing the seeds in their fields. That this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the complainants have used the seeds in question at Dabwali.

On merits also, the opposite party No. 3 has controverted all the material averments. It is admitted that complainants have purchased seeds i.e. OM3g from the opposite party No. 4 against proper bill. Complainants do not fall within the definition of consumer as they used the seeds for commercial purposes. The complainants have purchased seeds i.e. OM3g on 13-5-2013 and have sown the same thereafter in the month of May, 2013. The complainants have not mentioned in their complaint that when they sown these seeds in their fields, but as per the guidelines of Punjab Agriculture University, the peak season for sowing the crops is Ist April, to 30th April. In case any person miss the peak season for sowing, then on the said crops chances of attack of American Sundi and Patta Maror disease is more than the crops sown in peak season and does not give desired result i.e. crop. Hence, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for the negligence of complainants themselves. Moreover, the yield not only depends upon the seeds but upon so many other factors that are equally responsible for the same like agriculture practice, application of seed rate, climatic conditions, water intervals, sowing of seeds in depth, attack of pests and diseases, fertilizers/pesticides dosages, soil, physical condition of soil, the moisture content, sowing time, sowing methodology, salt accumulation surface layers, water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell in the atmosphere and other disease, remedial measure . The correct procedure was that seed should have been grown in a nursery and then transplanted to field and the total period for crop duration is 6 to 9 months including nursery period. After controverting all the material averments, the opposite party No. 3 also prayed for dismissal of complaint.

The opposite party No. 4 in its reply also raised legal objections regarding maintainability of complaint; cause of action; locus standi ; estoppel and concealment of material facts. That the complainants are involved in the commercial activities, so complaint does not lie ; That complainants are not consumers; complaint relates to purely sale which does not fall under the definition of consumer; That this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint;That matter does not come under the definition of service; That complaint has been filed on the same cause of action which has already been dismissed on 30-05-2014, so second complaint on same cause of action does not lie. That the complainants have not followed the procedure of Section 13 of the 'Act'; no sample has been sent to the lab to get the opinion; That matter is complicated and lot of evidence needs to be recorded; this Forum is having summary jurisdiction and matter should be referred to the Civil Court.

On merits, the opposite party No. 4 has also controverted all the material averments. However, it is admitted that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are manufacturer of seeds and opposite party No. 4 is selling their products. It is admitted that opposite party No. 4 sold the goods through bill. It is pleaded that complainants never followed the instructions which are written on the leaflets. As per opposite party No. 4, there are many factors for not yielding the crops as per agriculture manual like moisture, less or excess watering conditions, weather conditions, soil etc., which are very essential to determine the germination. It is also asserted that opposite party No. 4 used to sell the cotton seed variety produced by opposite parties No. 1 to 3 in the market. The report of Agriculture Officer is stated to be not as per rules and is vague. The complainant got the alleged report with the manipulation of the officials. After controverting all the material averments, the opposite party No. 4 also prayed for dismissal of complaint.

Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ishar Singh dated 4-6-14 ( Ex.C-1), photocopies of bills (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4), photocopies of letters (Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-7), photocopy of Jamabandi (Ex. C-8 & Ex. C-9), photocopy of Khasra Girdawri (Ex. C-10), photocopy of writing regarding lease (Ex. C-11) and photocopy of Khasra Girdawri (Ex. C-12).

In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have tendered into evidence documents Ex. OP-1/1 to OP-1/32 which includes affidavit of Sh. Subhash Chandra Sharma, Regional Manager (OP-1/1), photocopies of bills (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/21) and photocopies of reports (Ex. OP-1/22 to OP-1/26).

Opposite party No. 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar (Ex. OP-3/1)

Opposite party No. 4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar (Ex. OP-4/1), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-4/2), photocopy of cash/credit memo (Ex. OP-4/3) and photocopies of bills (Ex. OP-4/4 to Ex. OP-4/10).

Complainant and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have also submitted written submissions.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and written submissions of the parties.

Learned counsel for complainants has reiterated his averments as contained in the complaint as well in written arguments. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainants that material facts are not in controversy. It is not disputed that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are the manufacturer of seeds and opposite party No. 4 is their dealer. The averments of the complainants are that they have purchased seeds from opposite party No. 4 manufactured and marketed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The complainants have placed on file copies of invoices (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4) as detailed in the complaint. It is alleged by complainants that there is negligible growth of cotton crop and on the representation, the officer of the agriculture department visited the fields. The report of the sub divisional agriculture officer, Dabwali submitted to the Dy Director Agriculture is brought on file as Ex. C-5. In this report, it is categorical reported that in total 19 acres of land, plants of cotton crop were planted out of which 13 acres were with seed 6488, one acre with Om3g and remaining 5 acres with seed 6588. It is also reported that there were 60 to 65% plants of variable sizes. It was also reported that farmer has suffered loss. Therefore from the expert evidence also, it is proved that complainants suffered loss. The only conclusion is that seed was not of standard quality, as such, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is proved on the part of the opposite parties.

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the complainants that complainants have also brought on record copy of Jamabandi which proves that Ishar Singh owns land. The complainants have also produced on file copy of Khasra Girdawari which proves that complainant Ishar Singh planted cotton crop in his fields. The writing Ex. C-11 proves that both the complainants took 10 acres of land from Jagjit Singh S/o Natha Singh. Therefore from the documentary evidence it is proved that complainants planted cotton crop in 19 acres of land and there was damage upto 60-65% in the production. Therefore, complainants be awarded compensation as prayed for. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the complainants has cited :-

(i) 2012 (3) CPC 639 case titled J.K.Agri. Genetics Limited Vs. Jitender, wherein complaint filed for loss of crops were allowed by District Consumer Forum as well as Hon'ble State Commission. The revisions of opposite party was dismissed by Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi.

(ii) 2013 (2) CPC144 case titled Kalagonda Dhulgonda Patil Vs. Manager Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation & Ors. wherein Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, observed that State Commission could not ignore the report of technical officers by observing that seeds were not got tested in a laboratory

(iii) 2014 (3) 146 case titled Known You Seeds (India) Pvt. Ltd., and Another Vs. Ashwathanarayana Reddy, to support his submissions.

On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 has submitted that complainants have voluntarily purchased the seeds manufactured by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. No assurance about the yield was given by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The complainants have not detailed how much land was used for sowing the seed. The complainants have placed on file copies of invoices Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 to prove purchase of cotton seeds. From these invoices it is clear that complainants have purchased different kind of seeds. The complainants have not detailed that which particular part of the land with which particular quality of seed was sown. Therefore , it cannot be concluded that the seeds manufactured by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were defective. The complainants have purchased the seeds in April-May, 2013 but the report was made in September, 2013 i.e. after more than 5 months from the purchase of seeds. It proves malafide intention of the complainants.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that report Ex. C-5 does not prove the case of the complainants as nothing is mentioned in this report regarding quality of the seeds. The reason for loss to crop is also not mentioned. Moreover, the report of the Agriculture Officer is one sided. No notice or information was given to the opposite parties at the time of visiting of official and alleged report. No identification of fields of the complainants were proved. Even killa numbers are not mentioned wherein inspection was made. No photographs were clicked at the time of inspection. The entire report is unilateral and is not binding upon the opposite parties.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that in order to clear the report Ex. C-5, the opposite parties filed application under RTI Act, which was answered by concerned Agriculture Officer and in para No. 2 of this report Agricultural Officer told about the BT cotton, in para No. 5 it was told about the immunity power of the BT cotton, paras No. 11 & 12 is about the white fly and other diseases of the BT cotton. In para No. 15 it was admitted that only plant breeders can speak about the variety of plants of BT cotton. In further part of the report it is admitted that BT cotton needs more care and moisture and other factors are also responsible for the yield of the cotton. So in the light of this information, it is proved that in order to assess the yield of cotton crop, number of factors are to be taken into consideration. Therefore, from the evidence on record, the case of the complainants is not proved.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that even otherwise the complainants are required to prove their case as per their averments in the complaint. This complaint is filed jointly by Ishar Singh and Basawa Singh. It is mentioned in the complaint that some land is owned by Ishar Singh and some land is taken by them on Theka basis. The complainants have placed on record Jamabandi Ex. C-9, which shows only land in the name of Ishar Singh. No document is produced to prove that Basawa Singh is also having any land. Both the complainants are residents of different villages. One writing is brought on record that Ishar Singh and Basawa Singh had jointly taken 10 killas of land from Jagjit Singh in the year 2013-14 but the Khasra Girdawri Ex. C-2 shows that Natha Singh was the owner of land. No document is produced on record that Jagjit Singh was having any land which was leased out to the complainants. Moreover, specific land, khasra and killa numbers are also not mentioned in this writing.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 has cited :-

(i) 2014 (I) (NC) 186 case titled Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Vs. Garapati Srinivas Rao & Others, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble National Commission, that inspection report was given merely on basis of visual inspections of field. None of the report states that seeds sown by complainant were defective. It was further observed that crop can be affected by various reasons i.e. poor quality of seeds, fertilizers, inadequate rainfall or irrigation etc.,

(ii) 2013 (IV) CPJ 186 (NC) case titled Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar & Anr., wherein Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, has observed that when there is complaint by farmers regarding quality of seeds, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of Agricultural Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientists of Krishi Vigyan Kendra.

(iii) 2013(II) CPJ 617 (NC) case titled Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company & Another wherein Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, observed that low germination may perhaps be due to reasons totally external to quality of seeds. It was also observed that report of Agriculture Department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection was given.

(iv) 2012(II) CPJ 170 (NC) case titled Suresh Kumar Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-OP. Ltd., & Anrs., wherein Hon'ble National Commission, has held that it is for complainant to establish the loss suffered by him on account of any defect in goods supplied by producing acceptable evidence, supported by documents. Mere claim of loss or compensation of a certain amount cannot be accepted at face value.

(v) 2009(I) CPJ 180 (NC) case titled Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd., Vs. Parchuri Narayana wherein Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, has observed that quality of seeds ought to have been determined following procedure contemplated under Section 13(1)(c) not on the basis of assumptions and presumptions.

The learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 also cited 2007 (II) CPJ 148 (NC) case titled Indo American Hybrid Seeds & Anr. Vs. Vijaykumar Shankarao & Anr ; 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 138 case titled Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd., Vs. Sadhu and another ; 2007 (2) CLT 683 case titled Narender Kumar Vs. M/s. Arora Trading Company and Others ; 2001(1) CLT 45 case titled Suresh Kumar Vs. Haryana State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., 2014(III) CPJ 92 (Maha.) case titled Mahagujrat Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Sahebrao Totaram Patil & Ors., to support his submissions.

The learned counsel for opposite parties No. 3 & 4 has also subscribed to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1& 2.

We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

It is well settled that when the averments of the complainants are denied by the opposite parties, complainants are legally duty bound to prove their case by affirmative evidence. The complainants are also required to prove their case as pleaded in the complaint.

This complaint is jointly filed by Ishar Singh and Basawa Singh claiming that complainants are having 19 acres of land. Some land is owned by complainants themselves and some land is taken by them on theka basis. In the complaint, the ownership of the individual complainant is not detailed. The area of the land taken on theka is also not detailed. The person/particulars of Jagjit Singh in this case from whom the land is taken on theka is not detailed.

It is further pleaded in the complaint that complainants purchased cotton seeds known as 6488, 6588 and Om3g and sown these seeds in their land. To prove this fact, the complainants have produced bills Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4. A perusal of these bills shows that in addition to aforesaid kind of cotton seeds, the complainants have also purchased JK 1947, JOK 605, 653, 3366 BGII, 6317 BG and some other kind of cotton seeds also. It shows that complainants purchased various kinds of cotton seeds. The complainants have not detailed which particular cotton seeds were sown in which particular killa and in which particular field. Therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that complainants have planted cotton seeds manufactured by opposite parties No. 1 to 3 only.

The allegations of the complainants are that there was negligible growth of cotton crop. As per the complainants, the cotton seeds were purchased in the month of April-May. The main reliance of the complainant to prove negligible growth is Ex. C-5 submitted by Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali to Deputy Agriculture Director, Sirsa. Admittedly before inspection, no notice to opposite parties was given. In this report, it is mentioned that they have inspected the fields of Ishwar Singh S/o Balbir Singh. It is no where mentioned that they have also inspected the fields of complainant Basawa Singh or fields owned by Jagjit Singh which are allegedly taken by complainants on lease. The particulars of killa numbers are not mentioned. It is simply mentioned that in 13 acres of land cotton seeds of variety 6488, one acre of land cotton seeds of variety Om3G and in 5 acres of land cotton seed of variety 6588 were sown. How this was determined is not explained. In which particular 13 acres, 1 acre and 5 acres of land different kind of cotton seeds were planted is not explained. It was further mentioned that it cannot be concluded that which kind/variety of seeds were planted. It is simply mentioned that farmer has suffered loss. It is no where concluded that this loss, if any, is due to defective or inferior quality of any seeds.

Therefore keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered opinion that there is no cogent and convincing evidence of the complainants to show that damage, if any, to the crop was certainly on account of seeds supplied by opposite parties. Moreover, there could be some other factors due to which there may be no proper growth of the cotton crop such as quality of water for irrigation, moisture, less or excess watering conditions, wrong time of sowing the crop, weather conditions, soil, etc.,

As a result of above discussion, we are of the view that complainants have failed to establish deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly, complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

Announced :

25-08-2015

(M.P.Singh Pahwa )

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh )

Member