BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No.328 of 2014 Date of Institution: 4.9.2014
Date of Decision: 27.1.2015
Sukhraj Singh, aged about 50 years, son of Piara Singh, resident of Village Bajidpur Bhooma, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Zimidara Pesticides, Village Bajidpur Bhooma, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, through its Proprietor/Partner/Owner/Authorized Signatory.
2. Kaveri Seeds Company Limited, Registered Office 513-B, 5th Floor, Minerva Complex, S.D. Road, Secundrabad-500003, India.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Parkash Makkar, Advocate
For opposite party No.1 : Sh. B.L. Malhotra, Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Harpartap Singh, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased four packings of Narma seed-Nikki 7017 BGII 9 (lot No.100030), four
C.C. No.328 of 2014 \\2//
packings Jackpot (Kavari Company) (lot No.16342) and one packing 3028 BGII (Ankur) (lot No.63083) from opposite party No.1vide bill No.313 dated 6.5.2013 for Rs.7750/-. At the time of purchase of the above said seeds, opposite party No.1 represented to the complainant that he was marketing, selling and dealing in seeds developed by reputed companies and he further represented that the above said seed being purchased by the complainant was also the product of reputed companies and there will be good yield out of the above said seeds. The complainant sown the above said seeds in his agricultural land in 35 kanals 11 marlas as per the instructions of the opposite parties and he followed the instructions given by the opposite parties regarding the sowing and use of inputs etc. The complainant had sown the entire Jackpot seed in a separate portion of land 2-1/2 acres. After sowing the above said seeds, the complainant found that there was slow germination of crops from Jackpot seeds. He immediately approached the opposite parties and narrated about the same and the opposite parties assured that the complainant should not get worried, as there will be good flowering and fruiting soon. When there was no progress and the height of the crop was less, the complainant again approached the opposite parties, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant made a complaint to the A.D.O. against the opposite parties. A team consisting of Dr. Bhupinder Kumar, Dr. Sandeep Kumar, and Dr.
C.C. No.328 of 2014 \\3//
Vijay Singh, A.D.Os., visited the spot and enquired into the matter and reported that there was loss of crop of the complainant by 70-75% in the land measuring 2.5 acres on account of sub standard quality of seed sown in the said portion of land. The complainant has alleged that he has suffered a loss of Rs.1,40,240/- on account of loss of the crop. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,40,240/- as loss of the crop alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Further a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been claimed as compensation for harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their respective written replies to the complaint. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that no seed can be proved defective without proper analysis through a Government recognized laboratory. The complainant has not taken the opinion of any expert before sowing the seeds in his fields. Moreover, he has not appended any report of the Patwari or Tehsildar duly authenticated by the concerned authorities to prove that the result of the seeds were in poor condition. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant had purchased the seeds in question on 6.5.2013 and thereafter sown the said seeds in the month of May 2013. But as per the guidelines of the Punjab Agriculture University, the peak season for
C.C. No.328 of 2014 \\4//
sowing the crops is 1st April to 30th April and in case any person miss the peak season for sowing, then on the said crops, chances of attack of pests/ diseases are more than the crops sown in peak season. The yield is not only depend upon the seeds, but upon so many other factors that are equally responsible for the same like agriculture practice, application of seed rate, climatic condition, water intervals, sowing of seeds in depth, attack of pests and diseases, fertilizers/pesticides dosages, soil and water etc. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant has mentioned in his complaint that he sown 4 packets over 2-1/2 acres of land. As per recommendations of the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, 2 packets are required for one acre land. Therefore, the complainant himself is negligent for sowing less quantity of seeds. Further it has been pleaded that Agriculture Development Officer, Abohar, visited the spot and had given the report that the crop has damaged to the tune of 70-75% with Leaf Curl Disease and the attack of the White Fly is over the crops. As such, the A.D.O. has not stated that there was any defect in the seeds in question. Had the seeds were defective, he would have written in his report. He has clearly mentioned in his report that damage to crop, if any, is because of Leaf Curl Disease/Virus. This disease is a migrated disease, which is caused by White Fly transmitted virus. This disease is also not related with the quality of seeds. He has not stated in his report that the seeds in question were
C.C. No.328 of 2014 \\5//
defective or the loss, if any, of the crop is due to bad effect of seeds in question. Further the A.D.O. has not mentioned in his report the number of killas of the land, which was inspected by him. The opposite party was never summoned by the A.D.O. at the time of inspection. Further as per the recommendations of Agriculture Department, only 127 kg. DAP and 130 kg. Urea khad is to be applied in the field, whereas, the complainant has used fertilizer in his fields without any specification. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. In its written reply, opposite party No.2 has pleaded that no where in the report, it has been mentioned that the crop has been destroyed due to poor quality of seeds branded as Jackpot. Moreover, the crop has been destroyed due to the disease Patta Marod or Nikki Makhi, it is due to lack of spraying pesticides and opposite party No.2 is not binding for that. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant himself is a frustrated and mentally upset person. He is habitual of making false complaints against any one. Opposite party No.2 has pleaded that in Gram Panchayat Resolution, it is clearly stated that he is mentally upset and uses intoxicants etc. and if the complainant makes any complaint against any one, then first contact to the Gram Panchayat. Rest of the averments of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
C.C. No.328 of 2014 \\6//
4. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/3 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1. Similarly, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/7 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
6. Purchase of the seeds in question by the complainant from opposite party No.1 vide bill No.313 dated 6.5.2013 Ex.C-7 has been admitted. The grievance of the complainant is that he had sown the seed of Jaakpot variety bearing Lot No.16342 of opposite party No.2 in 2.5 acres of land and followed the instructions given by the opposite parties regarding sowing and use of inputs etc., but he has to suffer a loss to the tune of Rs.1,40,240/- on account of damage to his crop to the tune of 70-75% in the said 2.5 acres of land on account of sub standard quality of seed in question supplied by the opposite parties. To prove his case, the complainant has placed on the file copy of Field Inspection Report as Ex.C-9, issued by a team of Agriculture Development Officers, Abohar. In
C.C. No.328 of 2014 \\7//
the said Field Inspection Report, the team of Agriculture Development Officers has reported that on 22.10.2013, they visited and inspected the filed of complainant Sukhraj Singh son of Piara Singh, resident of Village Bazidpur Bhoma and it was found that in about 2½ acres of Narma crop of the farmer, the height of the crop was 4 to 4½ feet, the number of flowers was from 12 to 18 and number of cotton bolls was 17 approximately, which also did not appear to be matured; there was attack of ‘Patta Marod’ disease upto 90-95% on the said Narma crop and due to attack of While Fly, the Narma crop turned black. They have further mentioned that the expected loss to the Narma crop in said 2½ acres of land was to the tune of 70-75%. But in the said Inspection Report, the team of Agriculture Development Officers has not written even a single word that the said loss of the Narma crop of the complainant was due to any defect or substandard variety of the seeds in question. Inspection report Ex.C-9 clearly reveals that the alleged loss of the Narma crop of the complainant had occurred on account of attack of ‘Patta Marod’ disease as well as of White Fly. The complainant has failed to prove that the alleged loss of his narma crop was occurred due to alleged defective/poor quality of the Narma seeds in question. The complainant has failed to establish any case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed for.
C.C. No.328 of 2014 \\8//
Resultantly the present complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
27.1.2015
(Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh) Member
