DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.50 of 22.2.2007 Decided on :25.6.2007 <br /> <br /> Jasvir Singh S/o Sh. Gurmail Singh, R/o H. No. 25919, Street No. 2, Amarpura Basti, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus <br /> 1. Rasi Seeds (P) Ltd., Plot No. 27, Paigah Colony, S.P. Road, Secunderabad (.A.P) through its Managing Director/G.M/Chairman.<br /> 2. M/s. Lakshmi Enterprises, 76, Phase-1, Model Town, Bathinda through its Branch Manager/Regional Manager.<br /> 3. Roshan Lal Ghansham Dass, Insecticides & Fertilizer dealer, Dabwali through its Proprietor/Partner.<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. Ashok Gupta, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. G.S. Chugh, counsel for opposite parties No. 1&2<br /> Sh. Abhey Singla, counsel for opposite party No.3<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> <br /> 1. 12 Acres of land in t he area of Janta Nagar, Near Sirhind Canal, Bathinda was taken by the complainant for agricultural purposes for earning livelihood. American Cotton Crop (Narma) was to be sown in this land. Opposite party No.2 was contacted for the purpose of purchasing Rasi 134 cotton seeds, which arranged the delivery of the seeds from opposite party No. 3. 8 packets of seeds were purchased from the opposite parties for a consideration of Rs. 4,680/- vide invoice No. 0701 dated 17.5.2006. Assurance was given at the time of selling the seeds that they would yield 40 mounds of cotton per acre. Seeds were sown in the land. Required fertilizer was put and other activities were properly performed for getting good yield. Despite this, there were no bolls (Tindas) to the crop. He spent Rs.4,000/- per acre on spray etc., Rs.6,500/- per acre for repeated watering, ploughing and cultivation process. Agriculture Department was approached by him. Dr. Gurmail Singh, District Development Officer (Agriculture), Bathinda visited the fields on 30.11.2006. After detailed inquiry, physical verification at the site and comparing crop in other fields with the crop in the fields of the complainant, he came to the conclusion that seeds sold to him were inferior/sub standard due to which crop could not have bolls. Complainant alleges that he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.1,26,000/- i.e. @ Rs.10,500/- per acre. Land was taken on lease (Theka) basis for Rs.1,56,000/-. He further alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 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 by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs.2,82,000/- on account of loss suffered by him; Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony; Rs.50,000/- as income loss; Rs.4,680/- paid as price of the seeds alongwith interest @ 18% P.A, besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,500/-.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their version taking legal objections that seeds were purchased directly from opposite party No. 3. Futile exercise has been made to array opposite party No.2 in the complaint in order to attract territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; matter can only be decided by the civil court as intricate questions of law are involved for which oral, documentary and expert evidence is required; complaint is false and frivolous and it has been filed with malafide intention to tarnish their image and reputation. They deny that opposite party No.3 arranged the delivery of the seeds. Seeds were not purchased from them. Opposite party No.1 is dealing in the manufacture of seeds for the last three decades . It is maintaining its laboratory. Each kind of seed is checked. After they are found fit, they are released for sowing. This company is known across the country and doing brisk business due to its superior quality of seeds. During the long span of period of business, no complaint regarding the seeds manufactured by it has been received. 8 packets of seeds purchased by the complainant were sufficient only for four acres of land. They were insufficient for 12 acres of land. Possibility of mixing some other brand of seeds in these seeds cannot be excluded. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No.3 filed separate reply taking legal objections that complainant has not come with clean hands and that only civil court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as complicated questions of law and facts are involved. On merits, its version is that copies of the Jamabandies and Khasra Girdwaries have not been annexed with the complaint to show ownership and possession of 12 acres of land. It had purchased 50 packets of seeds from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. 416 dated 8.5.2006. It admits that it had sold 8 packets out of them manufactured by opposite party No.1 vide bill No. 701 dated 17.5.2006.. All the packets were duly packed and sealed by opposite party No.1. Sealed packets were also sold to some other persons vide different bills. NO person lodged any complaint about the quality of the seeds. Opposite party No.1 is a well known company. It is enjoying very good reputation in the market. Seeds supplied by it yield good produce. 8 packets of seeds are sufficient for four acres of land. It denies that complainant had given proper fertilizer etc. for proper yield. Harbans Singh, Teja Singh, Buta Singh and Attar Singh have given affidavits that the seeds purchased by them from it were of good quality. It denies that complainant had obtained report from the District Development Officer (Agriculture), Bathinda. It appears that inquiry, if any, was manipulated one. Seeds supplied were not sub-standard. Damage to the crop can be due to spray of inferior quality, wrong timing of spray, watering, ploughing etc. There can be several reasons for damage to the crop. It refutes remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Jasvir Singh complainant tendered into evidence photocopy of bill (Ex.C.1), his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.10), photocopy of memo dated 11.12.2006 (Ex.C.3), photocopy of report of Dr. Gurmail Singh (Ex.C.4), photocopy of agreement (Ex.C.5), photocopy of jamabandi (Ex.C.6) & affidavits (Ex.C.7 to Ex.C.9) of S/Sh. Buta Singh, Satpal & Gurpal Singh respectively.<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits of S/Sh. Ashutosh Garg Proprietor of opposite party No.3, Avtar Singh, Buta Singh, Teja Singh, Harbans Singh & Niranjan Singh, Regional Branch Manager of opposite party No.2 which are Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5 & Ex.R.13 respectively; photocopy of invoice dated 8.5.2006 (Ex.R.6), photocopies of bills (Ex.R.7 to Ex.R.12), photocopy of letter dated 15.5.2007 (Ex.R.14) and photocopy of test report (Ex.R.15). <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the opposite parties. <br /> 7. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant are that eight packets of American Cotton Seeds of the variety of Rashi 134 were purchased by the complainant. They were sown in 12 acres of land taken by the complainant from Sandeep Singh on lease vide agreement, copy of which is Ex.C.5. Every care and caution was taken. Despite this, crop did not bear bolls. He further argued that matter was reported to the Agricultural Department and Dr. Gurmail Singh, District Development Officer (Agriculture), Bathinda had inspected the crop and has given report, copy of which is Ex.C.4. Plea of the complainant stands supported with the affidavits of S/Sh. Buta Singh, Satpal and Gurpal Singh Ex..C.7 to Ex.C.9 respectively. Complainant has also reiterated his version in his affidavit (Ex.C.10).<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties vociferously argued that complainant has failed to establish that the seeds purchased from opposite party No. 3 were sub-standard or of inferior quality. Evidence does not establish this fact. No reliance can be placed on the report of Dr. Gurmail Singh. Several other persons purchased this quality of seeds, but no-one made any complaint. There may be lot of other reasons due to which crop cannot bear bolls. He further argued that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as seeds were purchased from opposite party No. 3 at Dabwali, District Sirsa (Haryana).<br /> 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. No-doubt, from copy of the bill (Ex.C.2), it is evident that seeds were purchased for Rs. 4,680/- from opposite party No.3 from Dabwali. Cause of action is a bundle of facts. Seeds were sown in the fields situated in the area of District Bathinda. As per allegations in the complaint, seeds were of inferior quality and the crop did not bear bolls. Hence, cause of action for filing the complaint arose to the complainant in the area of District Bathinda as seeds were sown in the land situated in this district. Hence, complaint before this Forum is maintainable in view of the provision of Section 11 (2)(c) of the Act according to which complaint can be filed in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, cause of action wholly or in part, arises.<br /> 10. Onus to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is upon the complainant. For this, he should lead cogent and convincing evidence. Deficiency in service cannot be concluded on the basis of assumptions or presumptions. Magna carte of the case of the complainant is the copy of report of Sh. Gurmail Singh, District Development Officer (Agriculture), copy of which is Ex.C.4. This report is not worth placing credence. It is not a case where there was no germination in the field. There was germination and crop was standing, but it had no bolls. There is no personal view of Dr. Gurmail Singh. His report is hearsay and is based on what was told to him by the complainant or some other persons. It is not worth placing credence. Had the seeds been of inferior quality, there could be no germination. His view that in the other fields crop was having bolls, is no ground to hold that seeds sown by the complainant were sub standard. There may be several reasons of the crop having no bolls such as use of inferior fertilizer, improper insecticides/pesticides, watering, wrong timing of spray, ploughing etc. Report of Dr. Gurmail Singh without any solid reasons cannot be given any weight. Complainant has produced affidavits of Buta Singh, Satpal and Gurpal Singh which are Ex. C.7 to Ex.C.9 respectively. They have all stated that they had sown American Cotton Crop in their fields and had good produce. They further state that crop of the complainant was not yielding any bolls. There is nothing in their affidavits that complainant has used the same insecticides/pesticides and that he had taken all other precautions for maintaining the crop which were taken by them. They being neighbours of the complainant are interested persons. Their evidence cannot be taken as evidence of the experts. Complainant has not proved that eight packets of seeds were sufficient for sowing in 12 acres of land. To the contrary, there are affidavits Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.13 of S/Sh. Ashutosh Garg and Niranjan Singh respectively according to which eight packets are insufficient for sowing in 12 acres of land. According to Ex.R.1, eight packets are sufficient only for four acres of land. So far as affidavit of the complainant is concerned, that stands amply rebutted with the evidence of the opposite parties. Opposite party No.3 had purchased 50 packets of Rashi 134 seeds, the manufacturer of which is opposite party No.1. Eight packets were sold to the complainant. Remaining packets were sold to other farmers. Copies of the bills regarding sale of seeds to farmers are Ex.R.7 to Ex.R.12. Ex.R2 to Ex.R.5 are the affidavits of S/Sh. Avtar Singh, Buta Singh, Teja Singh & Harbans Singh respectively. They had purchased American Cotton Seeds of this batch which were purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.3. The crop in their fields gave good yield. Had the seeds been sub standard or of inferior quality, the question of good produce in their fields, did not arise. From this, indication is that there is something else on account of which crop in the fields of the complainant did not bear bolls. It is also worth mentioning that seeds are tested by the experts of opposite party No.1 in its laboratory and thereafter, they are released in the market as is evident from Ex.R.13 & Ex.R.14. <br /> 11. In the premises written above crux of the matter is that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties is not proved. Accordingly, complaint 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 /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 25.6.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> bsg <br /> <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />