BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 190 of 2013
Date of Institution : 28.10.2013
Date of Decision : 16.2.2016
Sukhmandar Singh son of Sh.Rann Singh, r/o village Raghuana, tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Pardeep Trading Company, Seed Pesticides Fertilizer dealer, New Grain Market, Kalanwali, Distt.Sirsa through Pardeep Proprietor of Pardeep Trading Co. Kalanwali distt. Sirsa.
- Amar Biotech Ltd. 6-2-913/914, First Floor, Progressive Towers, Khairatabad, Hyderabad through Manager/Director.
...…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.P.C.Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is agriculturist. On the assurance of Op no.1, the complainant had purchased 8 packets of Om seed no.333 having Lot no. 3201 from Op no.1 vide bill no.7827. Op no.2 is the manufacturer of seeds. The complainant sown the seeds in 4 acres of land as per the instructions of OP no.1, but the crop was not grown properly due to duplicate seed. The complainant moved an application to the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa. Upon this, he alongwith Agriculture Development Officer jointly inspected the spot. It was found by them that loss to the crop of the complainant is due to sub standard seed sold to him and seed was not of original quality. Thus, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of less crop. The complainant also approached to Ops for compensation, but they refused. Hence, this complaint for compensation alongwith damages for harassment, humiliation and litigation expenses etc.
2. Opposite parties by filing their joint replies contested the case. Opposite parties have admitted the sale of seed to the complainant. It is further pleaded that Op no.1 used to sell the seeds in sealed and packed packets as received from the manufacturing company. Op no.2 manufactures, supplies and markets high quality and high standard seeds. The complainant on his own and wish demanded for the specific brand of the seeds. But the complainant while sowing the same into his fields has not followed the instructions about its sowing. The alleged report has been got prepared by the complainant in collusion with Agriculture authorities. Opposite parties further pleaded that the complainant never reported any alleged defect in the seeds and no notice for spot inspection was given by the officers of Agriculture Department. In the report also, there is no mention of sq. and killa numbers wherein the alleged inspection was conducted. The complainant has leveled false and baseless allegations against the opposite parties.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record various documents i.e. Ex.C1/A-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C1-receipt regarding sale of seed to the complainant; Ex.C2-forwarding letter of inspection report; Ex.C2/1-inspection report; Ex.C3-copies of jamabandi; Ex.C4-copy of khasra girdawari; Ex.C5-affidavit of Baljeet Singh; Ex.C6 and Ex.C7-pamphlet and empty envelope; whereas the respondents have tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh.Rattan Kumar, proprietor of Op no.1; Ex.R2- affidavit of Sh.Dheeraj Singh, Area Sales Manager of OP no.2; Ex.R3- letter dt.3.1.2002 for inspection of fields of farmers 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 crop of the complainant was very less. The complainant moved an application to the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa for inspection of the standing crop and to give the report. Upon this, spot was inspected by the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Agriculture Development Officer, Sirsa who gave a report on dated 17.10.2013(Ex.C2/1). The 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 of Ex.C2/1 given by Agriculture Department, there is no khasra/killa number in which the complainant has allegedly sown the seeds. Moreover, the alleged inspection has not been made in the presence of Ops.
7. On careful examination of the documents and affidavits of both sides 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.C2/1 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 that seed sold by the OP no.1 to the complainant was defective or adulterated and sub standard. There is no clarification in the report as to why the inspection team has not taken the samples of this lot, which was mandatory. 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.C2/1, the identity of the land cannot 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 crop. It cannot 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, the committee was consisted of only three members i.e. Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa, Agriculture Officer and Block Agriculture Officer, Sirsa. This report is not conclusive and the same is defective one. Even, no notice was issued to Ops for spot verification.
9. Complainant in his complaint has nowhere mentioned that on how many killas, he is having ownership. In the absence of number of killas, it cannot be said that the complainant purchased the sufficient seed for his land and sown the same as per norms. Thus, this Forum cannot go beyond the pleadings of the complaint. As per cash memo, the complainant purchased 8 packets of Om seed no.333 having Lot no. 3201, but the said seed is not sufficient as per the norms of the company. As per literature of company, minimum 10-12 kgs. seed is required for one acre of land. So, the complainant is failed to prove his case from all angles and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law.
10. The learned counsel for respondent 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 Lordship discussed above all the mentioned facts and accepted the revisions of petitioner (IFFCO) and declined the pleas of respondent/complainant.
11. Learned counsel for respondent 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.
12. 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:16.2.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
