BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 247 of 2017
Date of Institution : 28.9.2017
Date of Decision : 15.11.2018.
Lekhraj son of Sh. Ranjha Ram, resident of village Malewala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Seed Seller, Sunil Kumar Sandeep Kumar, near H.P. Gas Agency Janta Bhawan road, Sirsa.
2. Max Yield Biog Gene (India) Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.410 Amrutha Sai Residency, Above ICICI Bank Lanco Hills Road, Manikando Hyderabad- 500089 (Telangana) State, India.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the complainant.
Smt. Monika Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Smt. Sunita Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist and took the agricultural land from Darshan Singh son of Chand Singh resident of village Malewala, District Sirsa on lease basis. That in order to sow Narma crop in 4 kanal land, on 4.5.2017 he had purchased seed from opposite party no.1 vide batch No.10557 for a sum of Rs.800/-, the entry of which is mentioned in the bill of Rs.4540 bearing No.262. The above said seed was sowed in four kanal of land which was taken on lease. But due to inferior quality of seed in question, the plant of the Narma crop is very thin and due to the effect of quality of seed, the plants remained of very low height and there are very less flowers and fruits on the plants and tindas are also average and less due to which the complainant is unable to even bear the expenses of the crop. The complainant also got conducted the inspection from Deputy Agriculture Director, Sirsa. It is further averred that complainant purchased costly seed from the opposite party no.1 so that he could get good yield but due to supply of inferior quality of seed, the ops have caused financial loss and unfair trade practice to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that seeds were sold by answering op to complainant in sealed packet and also in the condition in which the same were received from manufacturing company. It is also pertinent to mention here that the answering op purchased the cotton seeds on 4.5.2017 vide bill no.262 manufactured by Max Yield Biog Gene (India) Private Limited Flat no.410, Amrutha Sai Residency, Above ICIC Bank Lanco Hills Road Manikando Hyderabad (Telangana) State, India Company and its authorized dealer R.R. Enterprises, 27-B, 2nd Additional Mandi Sirsa, hence answering op has been unnecessarily been impleaded as party to the present complaint. It is further submitted that answering op had sold the seeds to various agriculturist of the area, but not even a single complaint except the present one was ever received regarding alleged inferior quality of seed. The said seed marketed by manufacturing company was of high quality and answering op is not responsible for the quality of seeds and it is only manufacturing company who can reply regarding quality of seeds. It is further submitted that report is vague as it is not disclosing the Sq. and killa numbers of land allegedly owned and possessed by complainant as well as the land allegedly inspected by the inspection team. The alleged inspecting team never joined answering op at the time of alleged inspection and as such the alleged inspection report is not binding upon answering op. The complainant never approached answering op with the alleged complaint of inferior quality of seed and he has given totally coloured version. It seems that complainant by exercising his influence has managed to obtain false report suitable to him and that too without seeking the version of answering op in this matter. It is further submitted that on perusal of report dated 2.9.2017, it came to the knowledge of answering op that the persons of inspecting team have reported that in 4 kanals land, there was effect of white fly and only 30% plants were of the length of 1½ to 3 feet and other 70% plants were of the length of 4½ to 5 feet. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written statement to the effect that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not filed any expert report in support of his complaint. Hence, the complainant could not prove that the seeds are defective. That complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint against answering op. It is further submitted that the report dated 2.9.2017 of Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Baragudha and Agriculture Development officer, Mallewala is totally silent on quality of seed. It does not speak about quality of seeds. There is not a single word in the abovesaid report against the quality of seed. The observation in the report is vague, false and based on presumption of the said agriculture authority and the said report is not based on actual laboratory test of seed. There is no finding regarding defect in seeds which clearly indicates that there is no fault of seed and the alleged problem may be due to many other reasons. The proper growth, flowering and yield depends on proper agricultural operation such as proper preparation of the land, fertilization and use of pest and disease controlled medicines, type of land, proper irrigation climate and seasonal conditions. It is further submitted that simply because of less growth of plants and less flowers, it cannot be said that seeds sown was not good. The inspection was carried out in the absence of the op. The complainant has not mentioned the correct and complete name of variety, lot number of seed. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and has furnished cash/ credit memo Ex,C1, empty packet Ex.C2 again copy of packet Ex.C2, copy of letter Ex.C3 and copy of inspection report Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Ex.R1 in which he has deposed in verbatim the pleas taken in the written statement. He has specifically deposed that seeds were sold by him to the complainant in sealed packet and also in the condition in which the same were received from manufacturing company. He has further deposed that he purchased the cotton seeds on 4.5.2017 vide bill no.262 manufactured by Max Yield Boig-Gene (India) Private Limited Flat No.410, Amrutha Sai Residency, Hyderabad and its authorized dealer R.R. Enterprises, Sirsa. The complainant never approached him with the alleged complaint of inferior quality of seed. He has further deposed that inspecting team have reported that in 4 kanals land, the above said cotton crop infected by safed makhi keet. The op no.2 has also tendered affidavit of Sh. Madan as Ex.R2 in which he has reiterated the pleas of the written statement.
7. The perusal of the evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has relied upon report of Agriculture Department which is Ex.C4 by which it has been reported that on inspection of the fields of complainant, it was found that complainant sown narma crop in about 4 kanal of land and there was effect of white fly on the plants of the narma crop. It also appears from this report that Agriculture Department did not serve any prior notice to the ops before inspecting the spot nor any sample was taken from the possession of ops in order to get the same tested from the concerned laboratory in order to come to the right conclusion that seed used by complainant is of the same batch and is of inferior quality. The complainant has alleged that he had taken the land on lease from different owners but he has not placed on record any copy of jamabandi, nor any affidavit of those landlords whose land was allegedly taken on lease. It is proved fact on record as per report of the Agriculture Department that crop was under attack of white fly and it has no where been reported that loss to the crop was due to inferior quality of the seed.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present complaint 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 President,
Dated:15.11.2018. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
