BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no 162 of 2014
Date of Institution : 21.11.2014
Date of Decision : 29.1.2016
- Tirlok Chand, aged about 40 years
- Mithu Ram, aged about 30 years
….both sons of Lachman Dass, r/o village Rajpura Majra, tehsil Dabwali and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Nirankari Seeds and Chemicals Main Bazar Mandi Dabwali through through its proprietor/Partner/Manager/Incharge/Authorized person/Responsible person.
- Nirankari Agro seeds Shiv Nagar Road, Mandi Dabwali through its proprietor/Partner/Manager/Incharge/Authorized person/Responsible person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SH.RAJIV MEHTA…… MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, case of the complainants is that they are owners and in possession of land situated in village Abubshahar, tehsil Dabwali distt. Sirsa. They had purchased 140 kgs. of rice seeds of P-1509 for total sum of Rs.11900/- from opposite party no.1 vide bill no.3250 dated 10.3.2014 on the assurance given by Opposite party no.1 that the said seed is of very good quality, quite genuine and original. Opposite party no.2 is the manufacturing company of said seed. After purchase, the complainant sown the said seed in his more than 50 acres of land. The production of rice crop would have been about 25 to 30 quintals per acre within 100 days from its sowing, but it was merely about 6 quintals per acre after one sixty days and thus, due to lower quality of rice seeds and delay of crop, the complainant suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/-. Therefore, the complainant approached to opposite party no.1, but no action was taken by him. Thereafter, the complainant moved the matter to the Agriculture department, Sirsa, who got inspected the spot by Sub Divisional Officer Agri. Dabwali and officials of department and they prepared a report dated 2.9.2014. Hence, this complaint for compensation alongwith damages for harassment, humiliation and litigation expenses etc.
2. Opposite parties, in their joint written statement, admitted the sale of said rice seed to the complainants. It is pleaded that the seed sold by respondent no.1 was a certified seed and was sold in the same packed and sealed condition. At the time of purchase of seed, the complainant was satisfied about its quality, packing and seals affixed on the same. The alleged inspection report prepared by the officials of agriculture department is not a scientific, technical and is highly defective one and cannot be used against the ops because the report does not contain any identification of the land i.e. killa number and khasra numbers. From the report, it is no where clarified that the inspection was done on the land in which the complainant sowed the said seed. Moreover, no notice regarding the inspection of field of complainant was given to the respondents. The loss to the crops may be due to soil condition, moisture content and climate conditions. There was no defect in the seed sold to the complainant. All other averments have been denied.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record various documents i.e. Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2 and Ex.C3-affidavits of Sohan Lal and Vijay respectively; Ex.C4 to Ex.C6-fard jamabandis; Ex.C7 and Ex.C8-warranty limitations of seed; Ex.C9-cash memo; Ex.C10- inspection report; Ex.C11 and Ex.C12-application for taking action against seller of seed; Ex.C13-writing given by Patwari; whereas the respondents have tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Kumar, proprietor of Op no.1,Ex.R2- copy of letter of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dt.3.1.2002 for inspection of farmer’s fields on receipt of complaints.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The main dispute in this complaint is that adulterated, inferior quality and sub standard seed was sold by the respondent no. 1. Due to this adulterated seed the total production of the land of the complainant was very less. The complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa for inspection of the standing crop and to give the report. On the direction of Deputy Director Agriculture, the spot was inspected by the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali who gave a report on dated 2.9.2014 Ex.C10. The rice crop was less/produced as promised by the OP no.1.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has argued that in the report Ex.C10 given by Agriculture Department, there is no khasra/killa number in which the complainant has allegedly sown the rice seeds. It is further argued that in the report, the inspection team has reported that growth of plants was having different size and they have nowhere mentioned that less production was due to defective or sub standard seed. Moreover, the alleged inspection has not been made in the presence of Ops. No doubt, complainant has produced the document Ex.C13 as alleged by the complainant issued by the village Patwari for identification of land in question. There is no dispatch number, roznamcha number mentioned on this report, which is mandatory as per norms of the revenue department. Moreover, it is not a legal and authenticated document. It is apparent that such document fabricated later on to fill up the lacuna. It shows mere a kachi parchi. It is pertinent to mention here that the committee has not called upon the Patwari, Numberdar, Chowkidar at the time of inspection for the identification of land. No girdawari is on the file in prescribed proforma of revenue department.
7. On careful examination of the documents and affidavits of the parties
and hearing of the arguments of learned counsels for the parties, it is clear that the complainant failed to prove that the seeds were defected. The case of the complainant depends upon report Ex.C10 of the officers of the Agriculture Department. We carefully gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. No sample of seed was sent to the Lab for analysis whether seed sold by the OP no.1 to the complainant was defective or adulterated. The inspecting committee stated in the report that the farmer has one bag unused seeds having no tag label of this bag. There is no mention of lot number of the said bag. To prove his case, the farmer has not produced the said bag in this Forum. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officials of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officials of the agriculture department. From report Ex.C10, 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 cotton crop. It can not be said that the complainant had really suffered any loss due to defective seed.”
8. As per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002, issued to all the Deputy Director in the State in which it is directed by the Director Agriculture, inspection team consisting with total four members, two officer of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. But in this case, committee was consisted of three members i.e. Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali, Agriculture Development Officer, Dabwali and Agriculture Development Officer, Moujgarh but there are signatures of only one member i.e. Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali on the report. Moreover, no notice was issued to ops for spot verification.
10. Learned counsel for complainant has produced the citations titled Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajpal & Ors, III(2014) CPJ 196 and Dharam Pal & Sons and others Vs. Som Parkash, II (2014) CPJ 703 (NC). No doubt, these laws are helpful to the complainant, except this count there are so many discrepancies in this case. The learned counsel for respondents produced the latest judgments titled Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop (NC) in Revision petition no.1295 of 2014 decided on 26.11.2014; Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bhup Singh (NC) in Revision petition no.2144 of 2014 decided on 9.4.2015; Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Jagdish (NC) in Revision petition no.2143 of 2014 decided on 9.4.2015 and Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Sunder Lal (NC) in Revision petition no.2502 of 2014 decided on 9.4.2015. In the above mentioned judgments/revision their Lordship discussed above all the mentioned facts and accepted the revisions of petitioner (IFFCO) and declined the pleas of respondent/complainant. But, the latest citations placed on record by learned counsel for respondent are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. Learned counsel for respondents also produced the judgment titled Gujarat State Coop. Mktg. Federation Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyambhai Fulabhai Patel, III(2011) CPJ 433 (NC), wherein it is held that poor germination of seeds cannot always be attributed to quality of the seeds, as germination depends on many factors, including type of irrigation, fertility of soil, proper use of pesticides, fertilizers, sufficient quality and sufficient quantity of the seeds.
10. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, we leave the parties to bear their own cost. 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. Presiding Member,
Dated:29.1.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Tirlok Chand Vs. Nirankari Seeds
Present: Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
Arguments heard. For order to come up on 29.1.2016.
Dated:20.1.2016.
Member. Presiding Member,
DCDRF,Sirsa.
Present: Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been dismissed with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:29.1.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
