THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 145 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 03.04.2013.
Date of Decision: -10.03.2017.
Ramesh aged 47 years son of Shri Santlal, resident of Bajina, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Shree Ram Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 38-39, Jawahar Market, Old Dhan Mandi, Shri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan through Authroized Signatory.
- Padam Sales Corporation, Lohar Bazar, Bhiwani through Authroized Signatory.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate for complainant
Shri Dinesh Gupta, Advocate for OP no. 2.
OP no. 1 already exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant purchased two bags of cotton seeds variety Shriram-38 total 3kg for Rs. 480/- vide bill dated 23.04.2012 from the OP no. 2 produced by OP no. 1. It is alleged that the complainant sowed the said seed in his field on 26.04.2012 alongwith 75 kg D.A.B. and 75 kg urea fertilizer and irrigated timely and also spread the medicines. It is alleged that only the plants were germinated from the seed and there was no yield of cotton crop. The complainant got inspected his field from Agriculture Department, Bhiwani. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. Reply was filed on behalf of the OP no. 1. It is submitted that the quality of seed manufactured by OP no. 1 is always as per required standard. It is submitted that the complainant never approached OP no. 1 regarding any complaint of non germination. ence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. Late on OP no. 1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no. 2 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that the quality of seeds manufactured by OP no. 1 is always as per required standard and till date no complaint regarding any seed manufactured by OP no. 1 has come to the knowledge of OP no. 2 but even the complainant never approached the OP no. 1 regarding any complaint of non germination as mentioned in his complaint. It is submitted that the OP no. 2 has assured the complainant regarding good quality of seed manufactured by OP no. 1, so far the assurances of getting better crop from using this seed is concern, one can guarantee anything regarding productions of crops as it depends upon so many factors such as quality of seeds, manner of sowing, the manner of irrigation and then using various pesticides properly. It is submitted that there is no evidence regarding using of Urea, pesticides etc. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C5 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. On the other hand, counsel for OP no. 2 has tendered into evidence document Annexure R-1 alongwith supporting affiadavit.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant purchased two bags of cotton seeds variety Shriram-38 total 3kg for Rs. 480/- vide bill dated 23.04.2012 from OP no. 2 produced by OP no. 1. The complainant sowed the said seed in his field on 26.04.2012 alongwith 75 kg D.A.P. and 75 kg urea fertilizer and irrigated timely and also spread the medicines. Only the plants were germinated from the seed and there was no yield of cotton crop. The complainant got inspected his field from Agriculture Department, Bhiwani. The inspection report is Annexure C-3. In view of the said inspection report, the complainant has suffered losses due to the poor quality of seed. The Ops are liable to pay compensation.
8. Learned counsel for Opposite Party no. 2 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that there is no complaint of non-germination of seed. The yield of crops depends on various factors as manner of sowing, condition of soil, moisture content in the air, irrigation, timing of rain fall and use of fertilizer and pesticides etc. The complainant has not mentioned when D.A.P. Urea was used. He submitted that the complainant has not produced copy of Farad Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari regarding the yield of the cotton crops. He contended that no notice was ever served by the Agriculture Department regarding the inspection of the field of the complainant. Hence the inspection report dated 30.11.2012 Annexure C-3 is false and baseless and not binding on the Ops. As per the contention of the complainant, he produced only 3 kg seed for sowing in the area of 1 ½ acre field while 8 kg seed is required per acre for raising the cotton crop. In this regard he referred the instruction book bearing year 49 issue no. 4 regarding cotton crop published by Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have perused the record carefully. The complainant has relied upon the inspection report dated 30.11.2012. The said inspection report is disputed by the Ops on the ground that no notice was issued to the Ops for the inspection of the field of the complainant in their presence. The Ops have also contended that it has not been mentioned in the said inspection report that the seed was of poor quality. It is also contended that the seed was sowed by the complainant on 26.04.2012 and the maturity period for the crop is about six months but the alleged inspection was done on 30.11.2012 after more than seven months from the date of sowing of the seed, so inspection report cannot be taken into consideration.
10. Nothing has been mentioned in the inspection report about notice to the opposite parties i.e seller and producer of the seed regarding the inspection of the field of the complainant. The procedure laid down by the Government of Haryana vide memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002 has not been followed in this case to examine the crops of the complainant. As per the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has not taken any step to procure the analysis of the seed to prove the quality of the seed. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the seed supplied by the Ops was of poor quality. Considering the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:10. 03.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member. Member
