DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 336 of 21.11.2007 Decided on : 17.3.2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> Kaur Singh S/o Sh. Gurdial Singh, R/o Village Jangirana, Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., 905 Kanchanjanga Building, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi through its Managing Director/Director.<br /> 2.Parkash & Company, Gandhi Chowk, 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 /> 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. S.K Singla, counsel for opposite party No.2<br /> Sh. Harbans Singh, Authorised representative on behalf of opposite party No.3<br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant is owner in possession of agricultural land in the revenue limits of village Jangirana. He had the intention to sow cotton crop in his fields. 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 eight packs of this type of cotton seeds @ Rs. 730/- per pack against cash payment of Rs. 5,840/- vide bill No. 54 dated 8.5.2007. They were sown by him in his fields 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 /> 2. 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 crops. 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 lakhs packs of seeds. None of the person 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 Agricultural 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 fields of the complainant in the presence of any of its official. No complaint was made to it that the seeds are defective or inferior. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. Separate reply of the reply has been filed by opposite party No. 2 taking legal objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; intricate questions of law and facts are involved which can only be decided on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence which can be taken in a civil court; complaint has been filed with malafide intention and it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It denies that any allurement was given to the complainant to purchase cotton BT seed Ranjit 913 BT. It admits that eight packs of cotton seeds were purchased by the complainant @ Rs. 730/- per pack vide bill dated 8.5.2007. There is denial that seeds sold were of inferior quality. Opposite party No. 1 is dealing in manufacture and sale of seeds for the last several years and is having its Laboratories. Each kind of seed is checked in the Laboratory. They are released for sale only after they are found fit for sowing. It denies that complainant has suffered loss on account of any defect or deficiency in the quality of the seeds purchased by him. Failure of the crop can be due to various reasons like cotton leaf curl, virus disease which is caused due to white fly or other disease or attack of pest etc. It can also be due to low quantity of seeds sown, poor quality of land, insufficient and improper watering, manure and spray of pesticides and insectides. It admits that notice was received. It was based on false facts. Inspection of the fields was not done by the Agriculture Development Officer in the presence of any of its representative. Complainant intentionally did not mention the terms and conditions printed on the back of bill No. 54 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that seller is not responsible for less yield. It had purchased 20 packs of seeds from M/s. Raj Kumar Chiman Lal, Main Bazar, Rampura Phul vide bill No. 836 dated 7.5.2007. Out of them, eight packs were sold to the complainant. No complaint has been received from any other person to whom the seeds were sold by it out of that lot. It does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. Opposite party No. 3 filed reply stating that there were two fields in which American Cotton Crop (Narma) was sown. One field was of 28.5 Kanals and the other about 18 Kanals. In both the fields crop was having good vegetative growth. It was not having enough flowering and fruiting bodies on the plants at the time of inspection. 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 /> 5. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Kaur Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.2), carbon copy of legal notice dated 5.10.2007 (Ex.C.1), copy of Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 (Ex.C.3), bill dated 8.5.2007 (Ex.C.4) and postal receipts (Ex.C.5 & Ex.C.6).<br /> 6. On behalf of opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1, Ex.R.5 & Ex.R.12) of S/Sh. Harbans Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Sangat, Vijay Kumar Bansal, Proprietor of opposite party No.2 & 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), photocopies of bills (Ex.R.6 to Ex.R.9), photocopy of challan dated 9.4.2007 (Ex.R.10), affidavit (Ex.R.11) of one Baltej Singh and photocopy of Pamphlet(Ex.R.13) of opposite party No.1.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 8. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Aulakh learned counsel for the complainant are that the American Cotton (Narma) Seeds purchased by the complainant vide bill (Ex.C.4) 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 in which he has reiterated his version and the documents Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4. Ex.R.1 is the affidavit of Sh. Harbans Singh, Agricultural Development Officer who has stated that he had inspected the fields of the complainant at the direction of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda and had prepared report dated 4.10.2007. Another report was submitted by him after completion of crop cutting experiments in the cotton fields. As per his report Ex.R.2 dated 4.10.2007, he had counted bolls with ten plants and they were 61. Thereafter, he opined that the yield per acre may be 80 Kgs. to 100 Kgs. Again he had made report after considering yield of 2 Marlas from the cotton crop standing in the fields of the complainant as is evident from Ex.R.3. On the basis of the produce from two Marlas, Chief Agriculture Officer arrived at the conclusion that total produce of cotton from one acre would be 220 Kgs. in one field as against 848 Kgs. an average yield in the Block. Regarding the other field, his view is that total yield per acre would be 228 Kgs. as against 848 Kgs. an average yield in the Block. Hence, comparative produce from one acre regarding the two fields is 628 Kgs. And 612 Kgs. Respectively as against 848 Kgs.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 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 /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments. 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 parties No. 1 & 2 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 were defective, sub-standard and inferior. <br /> 11. No-doubt, complainant has placed and proved on record copy Ex. C.3 of the Jamabandi for the year 2004-05. Sh. Harbans Singh, Agriculture Development Officer has not mentioned the Khasra numbers in his reports Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.3. His report does 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 of the complainant. 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 /> 12. 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.13 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 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 /> 13. 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. 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 two fields 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 other agency with whom he has sold cotton to show that there was less produce of cotton from his fields.<br /> 14. Affidavit of the complainant stands amply rebutted with the affidavit of Vijay Kumar and Ravi Kant which are Ex.R.5 and Ex.R.12 respectively. Opposite parties sold this type of cotton seeds to various other farmers through bills, copies of which are Ex.R.6 to Ex.R.9. No one came with the complaint that seeds were defective, inferior and sub-standard. Ex.R.11 is the affidavit of Sh. Baltej Singh. He had also purchased this type of cotton seeds. He has stated that there was proper germination and his land gave 42 mounds of cotton per acre. He further stated that there was no deficiency in the cotton seeds. <br /> 15. In the premises written above, we are of the view that evidence on the record does not establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1&2. Accordingly, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of 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 /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />