THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 425 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 14.09.2011.
Date of Decision: -31.01.2017.
Jagmal Singh aged about 55 years son of Shri Ramjas, resident of village Sherpura, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Sonu Beej Bhandar, Near Secondary School, Siwani Mandi, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani through its Proprietor.
- State Farms Corporation of India Limited (A Govt. of India undertaking) Regional Office, Jaipur, Rajasthan and having its registered and corporate office at Farm Bhawan, 14-15, Nehru Palace, New Delhi.
- Durga Sales Agency, Bhiwani, the sister concern of Jagdish Store, Tilak Bazar, Hisar, who is authorized person of State Farms Corporation of India Limited.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Present:- Shri P.K. Punia, Advocate for complainant
Shri C.D. Singla, Advocate for Ops no. 1 & 3.
Shri Ajay Allawadi, Advocate for OP no. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased Gawar seeds brand HV 563 from respondents vide bill no. 2910 dated 13.07.2011 for Rs. 296/-. It is alleged that he had prepared 2 ¼ acres of agricultural land and sowed Gawar seed after spending Rs. 3,000/-. It is alleged that the respondent had assured the complainant that the seeds so purchased by the complainant are very much trusted and good yielding. It is alleged that after sowing the seed and by the passage of time it is found that the growth of gawar plant has gone to the height ranging from 6 to 6 ¼ feet & it did not carry any fruit as such the complainant is nothing to get from the entire acres of land. It is alleged that the complainant asked the respondent to see the physical status of the crops lying in the field, but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent is retailer in seeds of reputed manufacturing companies which are renowned in India. It is submitted that complainant is not a consumer of the respondent. It is submitted that there is negligence on the part of the complainant himself in sowing and looking after the cotton crop as has been found by the local Commissioner at the time of field inspection. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no. 2 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant has never made any complaint to the answering respondent nor made any complaint to its local office. It is submitted that the alleged seed was not purchased by the complainant from its authorized dealer, so the answering respondent is not the manufacture company of the alleged seed sold to the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. It is submitted that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. OP no. 3 on appearance also filed separate written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent are retailer in seeds of reputed manufacturing companies which are renowned in India. It is submitted that there is no consumer dispute between the parties. It is submitted that there is no proof regarding less yield of gawar corp. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. In order to make out his case, counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C8 alongwith supporting affidavit.
6. On the other hand, counsel for Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7
7. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant sowed Gawar seed variety HV-563 in his fields but the crop raised from the said seed did not give any yield. He submitted that the Agriculture Development Officer submitted his report to the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Siwani, which is Annexure C-6 and the inspection report submitted by the team consisting of four persons submitted their report, which is also Annexure C-4. In view of the said report, the seed supplied by the Ops was of poor quality. Hence they are liable to pay the compensation.
9. Learned counsels for OP no. 1 & 2 and OP no. 3 reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. The seed in question was certified seed manufactured by the State Corporation of India Limited a Government of India Undertaking. They submitted that there is no complaint of the germination of the seed in question. The yield depends on the condition of soil, irrigation, moisture content in the air, rain fall and use of pesticides etc. They submitted that the Rajasthan State Seed and organic Production Certification Agency Jaipur, Seed Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture Shri Ganga Nagar Rajasthan has issued certificate-11 under Section 9 of the Seed Act 1946, dated 11.04.2011 confirmed the standard prescribed for certification under the seed act. They further submitted that no jamabandi has been produced by the complainant in support of his contention. The Khasra Girdawari produced by the complainant is in the name of Mani Ram for 12 Kanals. He further submitted that complainant has not produced the copy of Khasra Girdawari regarding the sowing of the said seed in his fields and the crop so raised. He further submitted that the inspection report dated 26.09.2011 submitted by the team of four persons relates to 43 agriculturist. He submitted that the said team while inspecting the field of the consumer did not call the Ops in compliance of the instruction of Government of India issued vide memo No. 5270 dated 03.01.2002. Hence said report is not binding on the Ops. Learned counsel for the Ops contended that the inquiry team has not mentioned in their report dated 26.09.2011 that the seed was of poor quality. The counsel for the Ops produced the copy of Seed Testing Report as Annexure R-1 and Certificate –II as Annexure R-2. They also further contended that the seed in question was purchased by the complainant on 13.07.2011 and it is not clear when he sowed his seed and the crop of gawar takes about 92 to 100 days to mature which is also evident from the inspection report Annexure C-4. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 14.09.2011, hardly 60 days have passed from the date of purchase of the seed, still about minimum 30 to 40 days were left for the outcome of the crop. The inspection report produced by the complainant Annexure C-4 is also of dated 26.09.2011 after filing of the present complaint. The counsel for the Ops stressed that the complainant has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act. The counsels for the Ops relied upon the following judgments in support of their contention:-
I Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Versus Sadhu & Another in Civil Appeal No. 1308 of 2005 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
II Mahyco Seeds Company Ltd. Versus Basappa Channappa Mooki and Others with Civil Appeals Nos. 2425, 2426, 2427 of 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 2428 of 2008 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
III Indian Farmers Fertilizers and another Versus Sh. Bhup Singh in Revision Petition No. 2144 of 2014 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
IV Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited Versus Gadesula Harinath & others 2014 (2) CLT 103.
10. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The inspection report dated 26.09.2011 submitted by the team of four persons is related to 43 agriculturist. The said inquiry report does not disclose dates on which the fields of the respective 43 agriculturist were examined by them and nothing has been mentioned about notice to the Ops i.e. the seller and producer of the seed regarding the inspection of the fields of the agriculturist. The procedure laid down by the Government of Haryana vide Memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002 has not been followed in this case to examine the crops of the complainant. As per the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has not taken any step to procure the analysis of the seed to prove the quality of the seed. On the other hand the Ops have produced the report of seeds as Annexure R-1 and R-2. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the seed supplied by the Ops was of poor quality. Considering the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 31.01.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member.
