BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 229 of 2018                                                          

                                                           Date of Institution  :   17.9.2018

                                                          Date of Decision    :    22.2.2019

Sultan Singh, aged 37 years son of Sh. Raje Ram, resident of village Farwain Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. New Balaji Traders, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa District Sirsa.

2. M/s Bharat Seeds, Shamshabad Patti, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.

  ...…Opposite parties.

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

Before:        SH.R.L. AHUJA ……………………..PRESIDENT

          SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL….MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person.

Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

                   Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is a farmer and cultivate the agricultural land after taking the same on lease. That on 26.4.2018, complainant purchased 10 Kgs. seed of paddy PB-1637 Batch Oct 17-07-302-BS-19 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.1500/-  vide invoice No.NBT-2018-19/188. That the complainant had sown the said seed in two and half acres of land which was taken on lease. The complainant sown the plants of the seed on 28.6.2018 when they were risen. That after one month of sowing the plants, some plants were looking different and they pulled out the plants which were looking different but after few days there were large number of plants of different quality and they found that the seed was of mixed quality. Then they went to op no.1 and asked him that seed supplied by him is duplicate because the plants were looking of different quality upon which op no.1 told that he had purchased the seed from the wholesale dealer i.e. op no.2. That they told him that the seed purchased by him is duplicate as their paddy crop is going to be damaged due to which they have to suffer huge loss upon which op no.1 visited their field and after seeing the plants told that he will call op no.2 and will show to him. Thereafter both the ops visited their fields and admitted that there is some mixing in the seed and asked that they will give the charges of labour to pull out the plants and asked to pull out the plants. It is further averred that when complainant told them that he has suffered huge loss due to mixed quality of the seed and asked to compensate him they refused for the same and stated that he can do whatever he wants. Thereafter, on 28.8.2018 he requested Deputy Director Agriculture Department Sirsa to inspect his fields and to take appropriate action against the ops and to compensate him upon which Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Sirsa vide his letter No.2204 dated 13.9.2018 sent the report issued by Scientists (Agro) Sirsa and in this report they admitted that due to mixed quality of the seed, there is possibility of less yield and due to mixed quality of yield there will be financial loss to the farmer. That op no.1 did not listen him despite his several visits to him and refused to compensate him. It is further averred that complainant is a small farmer and maintain his family members by cultivating 2-3 acres of agricultural land and is unable to bear the huge loss due to mixed/ duplicate seed. That complainant will suffer a loss of Rs.1,00,000/- approximately as per his estimate and the ops are liable for this loss. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections that complaint in hand is not maintainable in the present form as no defect in the seed is proved in the present complaint. The alleged inspection report prepared by the officials of the Agriculture Department is not in accordance to the letter memo No.52-70/TA(SS) dated PKL the 3.1.2002 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana, whereby it was conveyed to the Deputy Directors of Agriculture that fields of the complainant farmers will be inspected by a Committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientist of KGK/ KVK, HAU and the report will be submitted to the office of Director Agriculture immediately after inspection. But in this case, the officers of the Agriculture Department while inspecting the field of the complainant did not follow the instructions given by Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula. So, the alleged spot inspection report is no report in the eyes of law and same is liable to be ignored. Besides it, the alleged spot inspection report is highly defective one and cannot be used against the ops, because in the report they have not mentioned the killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land, which was inspected by them. From the report, it is no where clarified that the inspection was done on the land in which the present complainant used the seed. In the absence of any expert report and finding based on scientific and technical basis, it cannot be proved that seeds are defective and only on inference, it cannot be ascertained that seeds are defective. The alleged seed in question is a paddy seed and about its character and identification, only breeder can tell and explain. It is further submitted that there was/is no defect in the quality of seed as the seed is certified by the Govt. Agency i.e. Haryana State Seed Certification Agency, Karnal. Proper procedure has been followed by the ops for the production of seed under the supervision of the Seed Certification Officer appointed by the Govt. That moreover, the complainant has no where mentioned in the complaint the specific killa numbers and square numbers wherein he has allegedly sown the paddy seeds purchased by him from op no.1. Non mentioning of the same is serious defect in the complaint. It is further submitted that variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed, but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moister content at the sowing time and soil physical condition. These principles are applicable to the case in hand and the complainant has not stated anything about these things in the present complaint. The complainant has failed to follow the guidelines as provided in the literature/ broacher. Other preliminary objections regarding no locus standi, time barred, no cause of action, suppression of true and material facts, estoppal and complaint is bad for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (C) of the Act have also been taken. On merits, it is also submitted that as stated by complainant he purchased 10 Kgs. of paddy seeds from op no.1 and sowed the same in 2½ acres of land, but as a matter of fact, as per standard rate of sowing the PB-1637 variety of paddy seed per acre is 7-8 Kgs, therefore, for 2½  acres of land, at least 17½ to 20 Kgs. of paddy seed is required to be sowed. In this manner, the complainant sowed very less quantity of seeds in 2½ acres of land. It is further submitted that complainant never contacted ops no.1 and 2 and never informed about the alleged abnormality of plants grown in his field. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.      

3.                The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

4.                We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for ops and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of application dated 28.8.2018 Ex.C1, copy of tax invoice Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 13.9.2018 Ex.C3 and copy of inspection report Ex.C4. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Rajinderpal Singh proprietor Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. Vishwa Nath, Proprietor Ex.R2 and copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R3.

6.                The perusal of the complaint as well as evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has filed this complaint with the allegations that he had taken on lease land measuring two and half acres and had sown paddy crop after purchasing the 10 Kgs. seed of paddy variety PB-1637 from opposite party no.1 on 26.4.2018. The seed was defective one and he has relied upon report of Agriculture department Ex.C4. The perusal of evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed only that the averments of his complaint are correct but however complainant has not mentioned killa and khasra numbers of the land which was taken by him on lease in which he had sown crop of paddy. He has further not mentioned the name of lessee who had leased out land to him nor he has placed on record any lease deed of the land in question nor he has placed on record any copy of the jamabandi showing ownership of the land or copy of khasra girdawari showing his possession or cultivation of the land.

7.                The perusal of the report of the agricultural department reveals that officers of the agricultural department visited and inspected the land in the presence of complainant Sultan Singh, but however, this report does not find mention the name of the owner of the land/ lessee, numbers of killa and khasra. Further this report Ex.C4 reveals that it is mentioned that there is possibility of loss of crop but there is no evidence on record that complainant has suffered any loss due to any alleged defective seed.

8.                So, it appears from the evidence of complainant that complainant has failed to prove his allegations leveled in the complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence qua cultivation of land and loss of crop. As such the complaint is devoid of any merit and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to 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:22.2.2019.                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.