THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 578 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 13.12.2011.
Date of Decision: -21.03.2017.
Yashpal son of Satbir, resident of village Miran, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Jagparvesh Prop. Sihag Beej Bhandar, Village Miran, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
- Manager, State Farms Corporation of India Ltd., Regd. Office Farm Bhawan, 14-15 Nehru Place, New Delhi-19.
- Durga Sales Agency, The sister concern of M.S. Jagdish Store, Tilak Bazar, Hisar, District Hisar.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Ompal Potlia, Advocate for complainant
Shri Satpal Sihag, Advocate for OP no. 1 & 3.
Shri Ajay Allawadi, Advocate for OP no. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that on 02.06.2011 the complainant had purchased Ten Packets Guwar Seed named HG-365 from OP and paid Rs. 2500/- to the OP no. 1 & OP no. 1 had issued a bill No. 1027 dated 02.06.2011. It is alleged that he had prepared 12 acres of agricultural land and sowed Guwar seed. It is alleged that the respondent had assured the complainant that the seeds so purchased by the complainant are very much trusted and good yielding. It is alleged that after sowing the seed and by the passage of time it is found that the growth of guwar plant has gone to the height ranging from 6 to 8 feet and it did not carry any fruit as such the complainant is nothing to get from the entire 12 acres of land. It is alleged that the complainant and other farmers of village made a complaint to Agriculture Development Officer, for checking the Guwar Crops. 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.He
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent is retailer in seeds of reputed manufacturing companies which are renowned in India. It is submitted that complainant is not a consumer of the respondent. It is submitted that the complainant has not supplied any copy of alleged bill or any empty packet of said seed to prove that he has purchased the said seed. 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. Opposite party no. 2 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant has never made any complaint to the answering respondent nor made any complaint to its local office. It is submitted that there is no documentary proof/evidence in the complaint as well as record which may prove that seed in question was actually sown and planted by the complainant. It is submitted that the report dated 10.11.2011 which states that the alleged seed were sold by the private dealers and which is not the actual seed of these variety of HG-365. 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 C-1 to Annexure C-5 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. On the other hand, counsels for OPs have tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4
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 the seed in question from OP no. 1 vide bill no. 1027 dated 02.06.2011 Annexure C-1 for a consideration of Rs. 2500/-. He submitted that the complainant sowed the seed in his fields. From the germination of seed the plants were gone up to the height of 6 to 8 feet but there was no fruit on the plants, hence the complainant did not get any yield from the seed. He submitted that on the request of the complainant a team was constituted, who inspected the fields of the 16 farmers. The team inspected the fields of the farmers on 10.10.2011 and they submitted their report dated 10.10.2011 Annexure C2. He submitted that as per the inquiry report Annexure C-2, the seed supplied by the Ops was of poor quality. Therefore, the complainant suffered losses due to the inferior quality of seed He contended that the Ops are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgment:-
I Kalagonda Dhulgonda Patil Versus Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation & Ors. I (2012) CPJ 160 of Honble National Commission, New Delhi.
8. Learned counsel for OP no. 1 & 3 and counsel for the OP no. 2 reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. They submitted that the seed in question was certified seed manufactured by the State Corporation of India Limited a Government of India Undertaking. They submitted that there is no complaint of the germination of the seed in question by the complainant. The yield from the crop depends on various factors, like condition of soil, irrigation, moisture content in the air, rain fall and use of pesticides etc. They submitted that the Rajasthan State Seed and organic Production Certification Agency Jaipur, Seed Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture Shri Ganga Nagar Rajasthan has issued certificate for various lots sold by the manufacturer of seed, which are running into 26 pages Annexure R-1. Vide said certificates under Section 9 of the Seed Act 1966, confirmed the standard prescribed for certification under the seed act. They further submitted that the inquiry report dated 10.10.2011 submitted by the inspecting team relates to 16 agriculturists. They submitted that the said team while inspecting the field of the consumer did not call the Ops in compliance of the instruction of Government of Haryana issued vide memo No. 52-70 dated 03.01.2002. Learned counsels for the Ops contended that the inquiry team has not mentioned in their report dated 10.10.2011 Annexure C-2, that the seed was of poor quality. The counsels for the Ops contended that the complainant has not produced the copy of farad jamabandi and khasra girdawari. The counsels for the OPs stressed that the complainant has not followed the procedure to get analysis of the seeds as per the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They also submitted that the team has mentioned in their report that they inspected the fields of the farmers on 10.10.2011. The said farmers belong to different villages and moreover the inspection of fields of 16 persons is not possible in one day. Hence the said report cannot be relied upon because it is prepared without inspecting the fields of the complainant. Learned counsels for the Ops relied upon the following judgments in support of their contention:-
I Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Versus Sadhu & Another in Civil Appeal No. 1308 of 2005 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
II Mahyco Seeds Company Ltd. Versus Basappa Channappa Mooki and Others with Civil Appeals Nos. 2425, 2426, 2427 of 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 2428 of 2008 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
III Indian Farmers Fertilizers and another Versus Sh. Bhup Singh in Revision Petition No. 2144 of 2014 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
IV Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited Versus Gadesula Harinath & others 2014 (2) CLT 103.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The inquiry report dated 10.10.2011 submitted by the team of four persons is related to 16 agriculturists. The said inquiry report does not disclose dates on which the fields of the respective 16 agriculturists were examined by them and nothing has been mentioned about notice to the Ops i.e. the seller and producer of the seed regarding the inspection of the fields of the agriculturist. 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. On the other hand, the Ops have produced the report of seeds as Annexure R-1 containing page No. 1 to 26. 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:21.03.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member
