BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:310 of 2017.
Date of Instt.: 09.11.2017.
Date of Decision:10.01.2019.
Ramesh son of Ami Chand, resident of village Tharvi, Tehsil Tohana and Distt. Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
1. Sh.Jambheshwar Agriculture Store, village Parta, Tehsil Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad through its proprietor.
2. COMPANY SHRI RAM FERTILISERS AND CHEMICAL Kirati Mahal, 19 Rajendra Place, New Delhi.
3. M/s Kishan Traders Shop No.4 Bishnoi Mandir, Tohana 125120 through its prop./partner.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.
Present: Sh.C.B.Narang, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh.Bhal Singh, Adv. for Op No.1 and 3.
Sh.Sukhbir Dhaka, Adv. for Op No.2.
ORDER:
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) with the averments that he is a resident of village Tharvi, District Fatehabad and is an agriculturist by profession. It is further submitted that the complainant purchased cotton (NARMA) seed variety 6588 from the shop of OP no.1 vide bill No.485 dated 18.5.2017 for an amount of Rs.2175/- and the same was paid in cash.
2. It is further submitted that at the time of purchase of Narma seed in question it was assured by OP no.1 that the seed in question has been manufactured by Op No.2 and the quality and quantity of the same is upto mark and it was further assured by Op No.1 that the crop will give a yield of 15 quintals per acre.
3. It is further submitted that the complainant had shown the above said seed in 12 kanals of his agriculture land in accordance with the instructions given by OP No.1. It is further submitted that after growing of the plants, it was noticed that there were different varieties of cotton plant and height of the plants was also different. The flowers and the fruits (Tindas) on the plant was less than average and the complainant suspected that seed supplied by OP no.1 was duplicate. Therefore the complainant approached to OP No.1 regarding the defect in the cotton seed, but the OP No.1 did not give any response. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainant got the cotton crop field inspected by a team of experts of Agriculture Department, Haryana and the team of experts vide its report observed that number of Tindas was around 20 per plant which was less than the average. The team of experts further observed that there is possibility of 65% loss in the crop.
4. It is further submitted that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.75,000/- on account of defective seed supplied by the Ops. The complainant has further prayed that Ops may be directed for making a payment of Rs.70,000/- as financial loss and Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2175/- as litigation charges. Hence, the present complaint.
5. On being served Op no.1 appeared through his counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written reply wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, barred by limitations, cause of action, locus-standi etc. have been raised.
6. In reply on merits, it is submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1 because the manufacturing company is liable for defective seed supplied to the complainant. It is also further submitted that the complainant has not suffered any mental agony and physical harassment on account of any deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1. It is further submitted that the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed against OP no.1.
7. Op no.2 also resisted the complaint by filing a written reply wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus-standi, suppression of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.
8. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the germination of the seed does not depend totally upon the quality of the seed, rather it depend upon other factors such as soil, water contents, climate and weather and so many favourable conditions including healthy atmosphere for seed germination, type of land, proper use of fertilizer and pesticides etc. It is further submitted that the complainant in collusion with officials of Agriculture Department got a false report in favour of the complainant. The said officers had not sent the said seed in any scientific laboratory for test and the said report is proved on visual inspection and conjectures and the said report has been prepared without any knowledge of OP No.2. It is further submitted that the burden is upon the complainant to prove that the said seed was of sub-standard quality and of genetic impurity. The Op No.2 has controverted all the allegations made in the complaint and has further submitted that there is no deficiency on their part in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. OP No.3 also resisted the complaint by filing a written reply wherein various preliminary objections with regard to concealment of true and correct facts, barred by limitation, cause of action, maintainability, locus-standi etc. have been raised.
10. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the Op No.3 has not charged any kind of amount from the complainant and there is no contract between the complainant and Op no.3. It is further submitted that the complainant never approached to the OP no.3. It is further submitted that the OP No.3 had purchased the seed in question from M/s Chandgi Ram and Sons Distributors, Tohana vide bill No.32073 dated 13.04.2017. The OP no.3 has further submitted that the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed against Op No.3.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex. C3. On the other hand, Sh. Rohtash son of Prithvi Singh filed his affidavit in evidence as Annexure RW1. Sh.Preetpal Singh Seera filed an affidavit as Annexure RW2 on behalf of OP no.3. Sh.Sambhu Singh Bhati, tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.RW2/A on behalf of OP no.2. The Op also tendered in evidence Stock Register as Annexure RW4.
12. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the allegation that defective/ adulterated seed has been sold to him by OPs. Therefore, the core question to be decided in this case is as to whether seed in question sold by OPs was defective/ adulterated.
13. The onus to prove the above said fact is upon the complainant. The complainant in order to prove the above said allegation has relied upon the inspection report dated 12.10.2017 (Ex.C-3) submitted by experts of Agriculture Department. However, in the inspection report (Ex.C-3) it has not been observed by the inspecting team that the seed sown in the agriculture land was defective or adulterated. In the above said report the inspecting team has inter alia observed that the size of fruits (Tindas) on the plants was smaller than average. The number of Tindas on one plant was 20, which was less than the average number of Tindas. It has been further observed that on account of smaller size and less number of Tindas it is estimated that the crop will give 65% less yield. However, in the above said report the inspecting team has not mentioned even a single word regarding the quality of seed. It has also not been mentioned in the report that the loss caused in the crop was on account of defectiveness of the seed in question. It is a matter of common knowledge that in-addition to quality of seed there are so many other reasons such as quality of soil, climatic conditions, time of sowing, irrigation facility, use of manure, fertilizer, pest, disease and agriculture practice which contributes / affects the growth of plants and yield of the crop. Reliance is placed on judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Haryana Seed Development Corporation Vs. Sadhu and Another cited CPJ 2015 (2) page 13 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that variation in the condition of crop may not be attributed to the quality of seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality, use for irrigation, long drying spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, contents at the sowing time and physical condition of the soil.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint has not been able to prove through the above said experts report that the seed sold by the OP No.1 to the complainant was defective or adulterated. No other evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove its contention.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant. The present complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM Dt.10.01.2019
(Rajni Goyat) (Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh)
Member Member President,
DCDRF, Fatehabad
