BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.170 of 2014
Date of Institution : 3.12.2014
Date of Decision : 24.1.2017
Ram Sarup son of Sh. Jasraj, resident of village Nirban, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Uda Ram Pawan Kumar, Shop No.1 (side) New Mandi Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ partner.
2. M/s Nav Bharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 1st Floor, Vasu Kanan Complex, Opposite Gujrat Vidyapeeth, Ashram Road, Ahmdabad.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA ……………………..PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.R.Pilania, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. N.K.Daroliya, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is agriculturist and is exclusive owner in possession of land measuring 24 Kanals comprised in rectangle No.56, Killa No.3,8, 16 situated in village Nirban, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa. The complainant depends upon the income of agricultural land. He had purchased five packets seed of cotton each weighing 400 grams from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.2250/- vide bill No.41 dated 3.5.2014. The complainant had sowed the cotton seed in his three acres of land as per guideline/ instructions issued by op no.1 but due to defective and substandard seed, there were no flower/tinda on the cotton crop and the matter was reported to op no.1 but the partner/ proprietor of the firm did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant had given water to the crops, sprayed fertilizer and pesticides on crops but to no effect. On 24.9.2014, complainant alongwith his son Gopi Ram moved an application to the Deputy Agriculture Director, Sirsa for taking necessary action against the ops and for inspection of his crops and on that application Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa was deputed for inspection of the spot and to submit his report. Accordingly, he visited the spot and submitted his report on 29.10.2014 that the height of the plants was of 9 to 10’ and there was no flower on the crops and there is no hope of any flower on the crops in future. The other farmers in surrounding area were harvesting the crops of cotton and that there is 90% loss of crop of the complainant. The complainant has suffered loss of Rs.three lacs due to supply of defective/sub standard seed to him. He has also spent more than Rs.one lac in sowing the crops. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.three lac for loss of crops, Rs.1,50,000/- which were spent by him on crop and Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that yield depends upon so many factors like method of sowing of crop, irrigation, quality and kind of the land and environmental changes etc. and variation of crop cannot be attributed to the quality of seed/ pesticides. The complainant has failed to follow the guidelines as provided in the literature/ broacher. The answering op is only Dealer and he sells the products of company including the seed/pesticides in packed condition as received from the company. The seeds namely AAH1 was manufactured by M/s Nav Bharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Ahmadabad which has not been impleaded as a party. The complainant never reported any defect in the seed to the op and he has not attached any report of the expert/ chemical examination of the seeds. The op had no notice in respect of alleged field inspection and alleged report is not admissible as per law. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of written statement by op no.1, complainant impleaded said M/s Nav Bharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd. being manufacturer of seeds in question as op no.2 in the present complaint.
4. On notice, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written statement and pleaded its case on the similar lines as pleaded by op no.1. Besides this, it has also been submitted that possibility that crop of the complainant may have been affected due to disease and wrong spray of pesticides etc. cannot be ruled out. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
5. In evidence, complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 30.10.2014 Ex.C3, inspection report Ex.C4 and copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C5. On the other hand, ops tendered affidavit of op no.2 Ex.R1, affidavit of op no.1 Ex.R2, documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R11, affidavit of Sh. Har Kishan @ Kishan Lal Ex.R12, affidavit of Sh. Karan Ex.R13, and copy of notification dated 8.6.1999 Ex.R14.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The main issue in this complaint as alleged by complainant is that cotton seed sold by the opposite party no.1 was defective and sub standard seed and due to that seed, his total cotton crop has been affected and he suffered huge financial loss. The complainant case depends upon the inspection report Ex.C4 of the Agriculture department. We carefully have gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. No sample of seed was sent to the Lab. for analysis. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by them. From report Ex.C4 the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. Holding these views we have relied upon the observation of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in a case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 in which it was clearly observed by their Lordship that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant simply on the basis of a self serving affidavit when there is no evidence with respect to the less germination and it can be said that the complainant had really suffered any loss due to defective seed.
7. Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department, Haryana dated 3.1.2002, issued to all the Deputy Director in the State, it was directed by the Director Agriculture, Haryana that inspection team should be consisting of total four members, two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. However, there is nothing on file to suggest that any notice prior to inspection of the spot was given to the concerned seed agency and therefore, report Ex.C4 is defective one and is not acceptable.
8. Further more, there is nothing on file to suggest that complainant suffered loss of crop due to defective seed sold by op no.1. The inspection report Ex.C4 does not pin point any defect towards the seed in question. Whereas, the opposite parties have produced affidavits of Har Kishan @ Kishan Lal resident of village Saharani, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa and Karan resident of village Burj Bhangu, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa who have testified in their affidavits that they had purchased the cotton seed having batch No.31055 manufactured by op no.2 and they obtained proper yield more than their acceptance and the seed was of high quality and there was no defect in the seeds. So, it cannot be said that complainant suffered loss of crop due to defective and sub standard seed.
9. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:24.1.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
