BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 78 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 11.3.2014.
Date of Decision: -15.06.2017.
Indraj son of Shri Lekh Ram, resident of village Barwa, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Kaveri Seeds Company Ltd., 513-B, 5th floor, Minerva Complex, S.D.Road, Secunderabad-500003 (Andra Pradesh) through its authorized signatory.
- Mange Lal Ved Parkash, Main road, Siwani Mandi-127046 through its authorized signatory Distributor and dealer of Pesticide & seeds.
- Shree Jambheswar Beej Company Bus Stand, Main Bazar road near Shree Jambheswar Mandir, Barwa (Bhiwani) retail seller of Pesticide & seeds.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Smt. Sudesh, Member.
Shri Parmod Kumar,Member.
Present:- Sh. O.P. Sheoran, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ashwani Chaudhary, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Sh. Hukam Singh, Advocate for OP no. 2.
Sh. B.D. Mehta, Advocate for OP no. 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is a farmer and used to sow the crops of Guwar every year in his land. It is alleged that OP No.1 is the manufacturer of Guwar Kaveri-111 seeds and the OP No.2 is the distributor and authorized dealer of OP No.1 carrying its business at Main Road, Siwani Mandi. The OP No.3 is retail seller of pesticide and seeds at Bus Stand, Main Bazar, near Shree Jambheshwar, Barwa (Bhiwani). The OP No.3 used to purchase the seeds from the OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.1. The OP No.3 purchased 42 bags of Guwar Kaveri-111 each containing 3 KGs from OP No.2 vide bill No.232 dated 29.7.2013. It is alleged that the complainant purchased one bag of Guwar seeds of 3 KGs on 31.7.2013 from the OP No.3 Marka Kaveri-111 manufactured by the OP No.1 and paid a sum of Rs.480/- vide bill No.622 dated 31.7.2013 and OP No.3 assured that yield of the seeds would give much better results than other seeds available in the market. It is further alleged that the complainant sowed Guwar seeds (Kaveri-111) in one acre of land as per guidelines and directions of the OPs, after making the land fully cultivable and the crops completed all the requisite formalities, but to disappointment of the complainant, the germination of the seeds were very low. It is alleged that the complainant requested the Deputy Director Agriculture, Hisar for inspection of the crops and a inspection committee was constituted, who inspected the field of the complainant on 6.11.2013 and after spot inspection it was opined that the seeds were not of good quality and due to this the complainant could not get any crops of Guwar and there is every possibility of loss of 100% yield of the crops. It is alleged that the minimum yield per acre of Guwar crops in this area is 7 to 8 quintals per acre. It is further submitted that the OPs made the sale of defective, misbranded, sub standard and inferior quality of seeds and due to this reason, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financial losses. It is further alleged that the complainant met the OP No.2 and 3 and told him about the financial loss caused to him due to supply of low quality of seeds but they flatly refused to do anything. 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.He
2. On appearance, OP No.1 has filed written statement alleging therein that he is not guilty to sale of any defective goods/seeds to the complainant. It is submitted that manufacturer of seed is one of the leading and prominent seed manufacturers of the country and are having direct interactions with the farmers of Haryana State and there is no complaint of any kind in the other parts of the area of residence of the complainant. It is further submitted that the report submitted by the complainant does not depict any deformity or defect of any kind. It is submitted that the OP No.1 is a reputed company and the seed manufactured is got tested time to time. It is submitted that the complainant does not have any adverse report of the seed of the company and OP cannot be held guilty for lesser crop in the fields of the complainant. It is further submitted that the Op is not bound by the alleged enquiry report if submitted by the officers of the agriculture department, Haryana because firstly no notice of the alleged inspection was given to the OP and secondly no sample was collected by any officer from the fields of the complainant. It is further submitted that there is no report that the seed was not same sowed as purchased and it has not been mentioned by the complainant that which khasra number was inspected by the Officers, who made the alleged report. Hence, 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.
3. On appearance, OP No.2 has filed written statement alleging therein that the inspection team did not consist of the representatives of the seed agency as per the guidelines issued by the Director, Agriculture, Haryana vide his communication No.52-70/TA (SS) dated 3.1.2002, addressed to all the Dy.Directors, Agriculture Department, Haryana. It is submitted that the inspection had been conducted in a mechanical way and report given is based on visual condition of the crop and no scientific, technical, analytical methods had been applied to determine the quality of the seed. It is submitted that the said inspection report does not contain any identification of the land like killa number and khasra number of the land. It is submitted that OP No.2 being the distributor of OP No.1-Company sold and supplied the seeds in question to the OP No.3 which is the retail-seller of the seeds in the same packed and sealed condition in which the same was received from the manufacturing-Company/OP No.1. It is further submitted that as per standard rate 5-6 kgs of seed is required per acre and the complainant purchased 3 kgs. Of guar seed for sowing the same in his one acre of land, which required at least 5-6 kgs of seed and in this manner the complainant sowed very less quantity of seed in his land, and thus, he cannot blame the OP for less yield. 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. On appearance, OP No.3 has filed written statement alleging therein that the OP No.3 has sold the seeds which were supplied by the OP No.2 on behalf of OP No.1. It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the OP No.3 because he is the only retail seller of pesticides and seeds and bound to sell the same as supplied by the Op No.1 or 2. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4.
6. In reply thereto, counsel for OP No.2 has placed on record document Annexure R-1.
7. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant had purchased the Guwar seed from OP no. 3 vide bill no. 622 dated 31.07.2013. The complainant sowed the seed in his fields but the germination of the seed was very low. On the request of the complainant, the Deputy Director, Bhiwani constituted the inspection team, who inspected the field of the complainant on 14.11.2013 and submitted its report Annexure C-3. He submitted that the seed was not of good quality and the seed was defective and was of inferior quality. Due to that reason the complainant has suffered loss. The Ops are liable to pay the claim of the complainant.
9. As per the contention of the OP no. 1 that the manufacturing company of the seed is a leading and prominent one company. There is no complaint of any kind from any area or the area of the complainant regarding the quality of seed. The report submitted by the complainant does not depict any defect in the seed manufactured by the OP no. 1.
10. As per the contention of OP no. 2, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the inspection report cannot be relied upon because the inspection team did not consist of the representative of the seed agency as per the guidelines issued by the Director Agriculture Haryana vide his communication no.52-70/TA (SS) dated 3.1.2002, addressed to all the Dy. Directors, Agriculture Department, Haryana. The inspection has been conducted in a mechanical way and the report is based on visual condition of the crop and not on scientific, technical, analytical methods. No notice of inspection was given to the OPs regarding the inspection by the inspecting team. The germination of seed depends on various factors including water quality used for irrigation, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time, soil physical condition, weather etc. As per the standard rate 5-6 kgs of seed is required per acre but the complainant purchased 3 kgs of Guar seed for sowing in his one acre of land, which was not according to the prescribed standard.
11. Learned counsel for the OP no. 3 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the OP no. 3 is the retail seller of the seed which was supplied by authorized dealer/OP no. 2 and manufactured by OP no. 1. The OP no. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
12. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. As per the contention of the counsel for the complainant, the inspection report Annexure C-3 has proved that the seed supplied by the Ops was of inferior quality. On perusal of inspection report, we find that in first para they have given the name of persons who inspected the field of the complainant and in second para of the inspection report it has been mentioned that according to the farmer he has sowing the Guwar seed on 31.07.2013 with 3 kg. quantity of seed. The germination was normal. The farmer has used various type of pesticides for the protection of crop from disease. The inspection team has mentioned that there may be low production of crop. It has not been mentioned in the report that the seed was of inferior quality. Admittedly, the team has not mention about issue of notice to the seller and manufacturer of seed before the inspection. As per the guidelines issued by the Government of Haryana vide communication dated 03.01.2002, mentioned above, the inspection team is bound to give notice to the seller and the manufacturer of the seed before the inspection. Indisputably, the complainant has not mentioned the Khasra number, Killa number etc. in the complaint, nor has produced any Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari in support of his contention. 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: 15.06.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member.
