DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.334 of 21.11.2007<br /> Decided on : 17.3.2008 <br /> <br /> Harbans Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, R/o Village Jangirana, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., 905 Kanchanjanga Building, Barakhamaba Road, Connought Place, New Delhi through its Managing Director/Director.<br /> 2.Shree Durga Seeds Store, Gur Bazar, Gidderbaha, District Muktsar through its Proprietor/Owner/Partner.<br /> 3.The Chief Agriculture Officer, Dabwali Road, Bathinda.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 <br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Amarjit Singh Aulakh, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.1<br /> Sh. Harbans Singh, Authorised Representative of opposite party No. 3 in person.<br /> Opposite party No. 2 exparte.<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant is owner in possession of agricultural land on agreement (Theka) basis in the revenue limits of village Jangirana. He had the intention to sow cotton crop in the field. Accordingly, opposite party No. 2 was approached by him. He was allured by opposite party No. 2 to purchase cotton BT seed Ranjeet 913 BT having trade mark of Bollgard, developed, produced, packed and marketed by opposite party No. 1. He was further told that these were the best cotton seeds. Accordingly, he purchased one pack of this type of cotton seeds @ Rs. 750/- per pack against cash payment of Rs. 750/- vide bill No. 47 dated 11.5.2007. They were sown by him in his field as per instructions of the opposite parties. Despite best agricultural management, the American Cotton Crop did not come up well. Seeds were of defective quality. Even the leaves of the crop did not open. He sustained huge loss. Opposite party No. 2 was asked to pay compensation as the crop did not develop as per the assurance given, but to no effect. He got served legal notice upon the opposite parties through his counsel. Matter was brought to the notice of Agriculture Development Officer, Sangat. Report was prepared by him and was submitted to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda. It is averred by him that act and conduct of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 has caused him mental tension and agony. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to refund him the price of the seeds alongwith interest @ 24% P.A from the date of purchase of seeds till realization; pay him the amount spent by him towards labour, pesticides, insecticides and other hidden charges etc. and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation, besides costs of the complaint. He seeks direction to opposite party No. 3 to produce the report submitted to him by Agriculture Development Officer, Sangat.<br /> 1. Opposite party No. 1 filed reply taking legal objections that complainant has got no locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint; he has not complied with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c ) of the Act; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; complaint has been filed to humiliate and harass it; elaborate oral and documentary evidence is required for decision of the complaint and as such, complaint can only be adjudicated by the civil court and it is false and frivolous. Complainant has not attached any proof that the seeds purchased by him were of inferior quality. It is not ascertainable as to whether he had sown the seeds sold and manufactured by it. Productivity of the crop depends upon various factors like fertilizers, pesticides used, inadequate rain fall and over dose/poor quality of pesticides/insecticides used by the farmer. The loss of Narma crop, if any, as alleged to have occurred was not due to seeds. It could be due to climatic, soil born disease and due to various other factors like attack of leaf curl virus, mango mealy bug, white fly which are more popular in malwa cotton belt. If white fly attacks crop, then another spray is used which itself reduces the production of crop. Seeds in question are not immune from these diseases. Hence, it cannot be said that seeds were of inferior quality. It had sold more than two lakh packs of seeds. None of the persons to whom they have been sold has made complaint regarding the loss to the crop due to quality of seeds. Seeds produced by it are firstly tested by the Quality Control Unit of Chief Director of Agriculture and thereafter, GAC gives permission to sell the seeds after satisfying about the quality of the seeds. Opposite party No. 3 did not visit the field of the complainant in the presence of any of its official. No complaint was made to it that the seeds were defective or inferior. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 2. Registered A.D post notice was issued to opposite party No. 2 on 30.11.2007. Neither registered cover nor A.D was received from it till 7.1.2008. Hence, it was considered to be a valid service of opposite party No. 2. No-one put in appearance on its behalf. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte. <br /> 3. Opposite party No. 3 filed reply stating that the field in which American Cotton Crop (Narma) was sown was visited on 3.10.2007 and at that time cotton crop was not having good vegetative growth. There was not enough flowering and fruiting bodies on the plants. Complaint was made to him by the complainant. It was marked to Agriculture Development Officer, Sangat for report after paying visit to the field. Accordingly, report was submitted by him on 4.10.2007. As per field report and crop cutting experiments crop had suffered low yield as compared to average yield of the Block.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Harbans Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.2), affidavit (Ex.C.6) of Sh. Darshan Singh, carbon copy of legal notice dated 5.10.2007 (Ex.C.1), bill dated 11.5.2007 (Ex.C.3), postal receipts (Ex.C.4 & Ex.C.5) and copy of Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 regarding the land of Sh. Darshan Singh (Ex.C.7).<br /> 5. On behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 3, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.5) of S/Sh. Harbans Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Sangat, & Ravi Kant, Manager of opposite party No. 1 respectively, inspection report (Ex.R.2), photocopy of crop cutting experiment (Ex.R.3), Difference report of cotton yield (Ex.R.4) & photocopy of Pamphlet of opposite party No.1 (Ex.R.6).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, opposite party party No.1 and Sh. Harbans Singh authorised representative on behalf of opposite party No.3. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 7. Mr. Aulakh learned counsel for the complainant argued that American Cotton (Narma) Seeds purchased by the complainant vide bill (Ex.C.3) were defective and on that account, the crop did not come up well. Complainant has suffered huge loss. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavit of the complainant and Darshan Singh which are Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.6 respectively and to documents Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4. <br /> 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 argued that on the basis of the evidence on the record, deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is not established at all.<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments. Complainant reiterates his version in the complaint in his affidavit Ex.C.2. Darshan Singh in his affidavit Ex.C.6 states that his land was taken on contract basis (Theka) by the complainant for the year 2007-08. Copy of the Jamabandi Ex.C.7 shows that Darshan Singh is one of the co-sharers in the land measuring 24 Kanals 19 Marlas. Ex.R.1 is the affidavit of Sh. Harbans Singh Agriculture Development Officer. His statement is that at the direction of Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda he had inspected the field of the complainant. After inspection, he had prepared the report dated 4.10.2007 which was submitted to the Chief Agricuture Officer, Bathinda on the same day. Ex.R.2 is the report dated 4.10.2007. According to it, 50% American Cotton Plants were having less bolls and remaining 50% were having normal bolls. Average of the bolls of the plants having less bolls has been concluded by him as 4.2 per plant, whereas average of the bolls of the remaining 50% per plant was 40.2. According to him, the yield of the American Cotton Crop in such a situation can remain three/four quintals per acre. Ex.R.3 is another report of Sh. Harbans Singh, Agriculture Development Officer regarding both the fields of the complainant concerning the yield. His report mentioned at Sr. No. 2 is relevant in this case. He has considered the yield of two Marlas. On its basis, he has treated the produce/yield of one acre as 604 Kgs. Ex.R.4 is the report of Chief Agriculture Officer regarding field No. 2 of the complainant where American Cotton Crop was sown. According to it, if the yield is taken as 7 Kgs. 550 Grams from two Marlas, then yield of one acre comes to 640 Kgs. Average yield of the American Cotton Crop per acre in the Block has been recorded by him as 848 Kgs. In this manner, difference of the yield regarding field No. 2 of the complainant comes to 208 Kgs. Principal allegation of the complainant is that the cotton seeds developed, produced, packed and marketed by opposite party No. 1 and purchased from opposite party No. 2 were defective. In other words, they were inferior/sub-standard. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to establish it. Even Sh. Harbans Singh, Agriculture Development Officer does not state at all in his reports as well as in his affidavit that the seeds were sub-standard or inferior. If complainant was not in possession of any part of seeds purchased by him, he could move this Forum for giving direction to opposite party No. 1 to produce cotton seeds of the same batch and quality. He did not deem it fit to do so. Accordingly, compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act could not be got made. The evidence led by the complainant does not substantiate the stand taken by him regarding the cotton seeds. It is not his case that there was no germination. When there is proper germination, it is difficult to hold that the seeds are defective, sub-standard and inferior.<br /> 10. No-doubt, complainant has placed and proved on record copy of the Jamabandi Ex.C.7 and the affidavit of Darshan Singh to prove that he had sown the American Cotton Seeds in the land after taking it from Darshan Singh on contract basis. Sh. Harbans Singh, Agriculture Development Officer has not mentioned the Khasra numbers in his reports Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.3. His reports do not pin-point the identity of the land of the complainant. Had he given the rectangle and killa numbers of the fields which were inspected by him, the land could be connected with the land which as per version of the complainant was taken by him from Darshan Singh on contract basis (Theka) . For that reason, reports of Sh. Harbans Singh, Agriculture Development Officer cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of Hon'ble State Commission, Haryana in the case of Narender Kumar Vs. M/s. Arora Trading Company and others-2007(2)CLT-683.<br /> 11. Opposite party No. 1 submitted the questionnaire for reply by Sh. Harbans Singh, Agriculture Development Officer. From the reply of the questionnaire, it becomes clear that seeds were not sown in his presence. He has no personal knowledge that Neezividu seeds were sown by the complainant. Ex.R.6 is the copy of the pamphlet got published by opposite party No. 1 regarding the cotton seeds produced by it. Main features of the cotton seeds have been given in it such as time of sowing, distance between plants, manner of sowing, good and medium quality of land etc. Quantity of the manure and fertilizers etc. to be used at different intervals have also been given in it. Complainant in his affidavit does not give the specific details that these instructions were meticulously followed by him for getting good yield. He could place and prove on record the various details. Opposite party No. 1 has clarified that results of yield can differ due to quality of land, climatic conditions and improper management of the crop. There is no evidence of the complainant that the quality of his land was good or his land was of medium type. Similarly, Sh. Harbans Singh, Agriculture Development Officer has not stated in so many words that these main features of getting good yield were strictly followed. No-doubt, Sh. Harbans Singh has given his designation as Agriculture Development Officer, yet he has not disclosed his qualifications and experience especially about cotton crop. Neither complainant in his affidavit nor Sh. Harbans Singh has made it clear that prior to the sowing of the cotton seeds this time there was no cotton crop in his this field. Sh. Harbans Singh has also admitted that if two crops are taken one after the other, it diminishes fertility of the soil. Replies of questions No. 7 & 8 given in the questionnaire have been given by Sh. Harbans Singh. He admits that the crop of the complainant was slightly attacked by mealy bug insects. It appears that he has tried to help the complainant by saying that complainant had sprayed the crop<br /> <br /> regularly and insects were under control. He does not say as to when crop was sprayed by him. Yield can also go down when crop is attacked by such insects. From another angle as well, the report of Sh. Harbans Singh cannot be said to be binding upon opposite parties No. 1 & 2 as no notice was given to them by him before inspection of the fields. No-one can be condemned unheard.<br /> 12. Sh. Harbans Singh, Agriculture Development Officer has considered the produce only on the basis of the yield from two marlas by way of visiting fields only once. On its basis, comparative table has been prepared by the Chief Agriculture Officer. Sh. Harbans Singh has not explained in his affidavit that the cotton crop in the entire fields of the complainant was of the same nature and quality. Rather as per his report, 50% plants were having normal bolls and 50% were having less bolls. When it is so, how can the criteria of yield from two marlas be taken as the basis for arriving at a conclusion about the yield from the entire field of the complainant. It is a matter of common knowledge that cotton is picked from the bolls 3/4 times. Sh. Harbans Singh is silent about the number of picking of the cotton from the bolls. He does not state that he went 3/4 times to know the yield from two marlas at the time of picking cotton from the bolls. Complainant has not placed on record any document from Market Committee or of any other agency with whom he has sold cotton to show that there was less produce of cotton from his fields.<br /> 13. Affidavit of the complainant stands amply rebutted with the affidavit of Sh. Ravi Kant which is Ex.R.5. <br /> 14. In the result, we are of the considered view that evidence led by the complainant does not establish any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Complaint is meritless. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of<br /> <br /> this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 17.3.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />