BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No: 287 of 2015. Date of Instt.: 06.11.2015.
Date of Order: 20.02.2017.
Krishan aged 40 years son of Bhagi Rath, resident of village Gorakhpur Tehsil & District Fatehabad Mob. No.94161-45080.
Complainant.
Versus
- Suresh & Company VPO Gorakhpur Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its proprietor.
- Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited 8-2-277/45, Ist Floor UBI Colon, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad, Telangana-500034, Cell 9949666009.
Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President. Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Argued by: Sh.Dayanand Siwach, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Yogesh Gupta, counsel for OPs.
ORDER:
The complainant Shri Krishan has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs).
2. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant with a view to get high yield of crops had purchased two packets of cotton seeds marka 9605 (Flux) BT Batch 155119366 from OP no.1 for Rs.1800/- (Rs.900/- for each packet) on the assurance that seed in question is unique and of good quality and the same will give a yield of at least 40 Maunds per acre. Complainant sown the above said seed in his one acre of land by following all the instructions of OPs. It has been further averred that plants had grown upto to the height of 5/6 feet but the same was not having PHAL-fruits and the root cause of the same was sub-standard seed supplied by the Ops. The complainant approached OP No.1 and requested to visit the fields but it always tried to avoid the matter on one pretext or the other, therefore, he moved an application to Deputy Director of Agriculture Department, Fatehabad who directed the Quality Control Inspector, Fatehabad alongwith Subject Specialist Agro, Fatehabad to visit the spot. The Specialists visited the fields of the complainant on 07.09.2015 and in their report they have opined that there is possibility of 75 % to 80 % of economically loss to the complainant. Actually the complainant has suffered 100 % loss amounting to Rs.75200/-. He requested the Ops to compensate for the said loss, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking direction to opposite parties to pay claim amount of Rs.75,200/- and further to pay litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 18 % per annum. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Rohtash as Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Banta Ex.CW3/A and documents Ex.C1 and Annexure 1 to 6.
3. On being served, OPs appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the OP No.1 had purchased the seed in question from OP No.2 and as per seed production program issued by Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Limited the field test result is 96.13 % with germination percentage of 82 % and before selling the seeds in question necessary permission from D.G.Agriculture Haryana was also taken vide memo No.571-93 dated 06.04.2015. It has been further submitted that the Op No.1 had sold the same quality of seed to other consumers but there is no complaint from any other farmer and the complainant has filed the present complaint to defame the brand in question with ulterior motive and even there is no compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has been further submitted that the condition of the crop in the same lot at different fields cannot be attributed to the quality of seed but the other factors including high salt concentration, brackish water, moisture content at the sowing time, sowing method and soil physical conditions also play major role in germination of seed. It has been further submitted that the complainant has not placed J-Form qua selling of crop. No loss has been suffered by the complainant due to quality of seed and if the complainant has suffered any loss then the same is due to from other reasons, therefore, the OP No.1 cannot be held liable for the same. It has been further submitted that the report of DDA, Fatehabad is not based on observation of spot inspection and the same has been prepared on the information given by the complainant. The complainant might not have followed all the instructions at the time of sowing of seed and the quality of the seed was fine and certified. It has been further submitted that the loss to the crop in question is due to white pest (Safed Makhi keet) and leaf curl virus has not affected the crop, therefore, the present complaint against the OP No.1 is not maintainable. The complainant has managed to get the reports from Agriculture Department and Naib Tehsildar Bhuna/Patwari of Halqa Gorakhpur by using political influence but the said reports are contradictory because in the report the agriculture department has mentioned loss to the tune of 75% to 80 % but the Patwari Halqa in his report has mentioned 100 % loss. OP No.2 in separate reply has taken more or less the same grounds as taken by Op No.1. Both the Ops have submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Other allegations levelled in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Narender Kumar as Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1, to Ex.R15 and Ex.R1/A.
5. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the material available on the case file has been perused meticulously.
6. The complainant in support of his complaint has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and in order to support the version of the complainant, Rohtash and Banta have filed their separate affidavits Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A on the case file. The complainant has also placed on file bill No.115 (Ex.C1), application given to DDA, Fatehabad Annexure 1, report of Naib-Tehsildar Annexure 2, inspection report Annexure C3, copies of sticker having description qua use, label of the product and price etc. Annexure 5 and Annexure 6 and copy of jamabandi Annexure 6. On perusal of the record placed on the file it is established that the complainant had purchased two packets of cotton seeds 9605 (Flux) BT Batch 155119366 from OP no.2 vide cash memo No.115 dated 07.05.2015 for Rs.1800/- (Rs.900/- for each packet) as mentioned in copy of bill Ex.C1. It is also not disputed that when he did not get fruitful result then he made an application Annexure 1 to DDA, Fatehabad. From the jamabandi Annexure 6 it is established that the complainant and his brother are in possession of land in question. The Inspection report produced on behalf of the complainant Annexure 3 which was prepared after inspection of the field of the complainant to know the loss of crops due to seeds in question having been purchased from OP No.1 is most significant and material document for disposal of controversy involved in the complaint in hand as the complainant is mainly relying upon the same to prove his claim. Undisputedly, the complainant has approached to Department of Agriculture with the grievance that he has suffered a loss of crop due to sub-standard/adulterated quality of seed and sought a report from the department to this effect. A perusal of report made by the agriculture officers reveals that there was financial loss to the tune of 75 % to 80 %. In the report it has been also mentioned that the plants were having leaf curl (Patta Marod) disease and adverse effect of white fly. A perusal of the above said repot reveals that the reporting officers have not mentioned even a single word against or about the quality of the seeds supplied. Moreover, if the report of the officials of the Agriculture Department is discarded from consideration there remains hardly any evidence on the record for the complainant to prove his case because other evidence as well as documents produced by the complainant in support of his contention are not connecting piece of evidence in order to prove that seeds in question is sole reason of damage of his crop. There is no evidence on the file wherein any qualified person or laboratory has found fault with the quality of seed. The variation in the yield can be attributed to climatic conditions, pesticides, insecticides and preparation of land and cannot be attributed to the quality of seeds only. Judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs.Sadhu & another 2005 (3) SCC 198, the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Indo American Hybrid Seeds Vs.Vijaya Kumar Shankarao, 2 (2007) CPJ 147, judgment titled as Sushil Trading Company
and another Vs.Karnail Singh & others 2012 (2) CLT 271 (PSCDRC) and the judgment titled as Mahyco Vegetable Seeds ltd. Vs. Ishwarbhai Baburao Thakre & others 2016 (1) CPR 371 are relied upon. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per guidelines issued by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar the disease of leaf curl does not occur on account of inferior or substandard quality of seeds. Therefore, the OPs cannot be held liable for any deficiency in the yield of cotton and the seeds sold to the complainant cannot be held as adulterated and of substandard quality. Undisputedly, the complainant has produced two reports i.e. inspection report (Annexure C3) prepared by officials of Agriculture Department, Fatehabad and report of Naib Tehsildar, Bhuna. Perusal of both these reports reveals that it contradict each other because in one report loss to the extent of 75 % to 80 % has been assessed and in other report 100 % loss to the complainant has been assessed. From any stretch of mind, it cannot be said that there is deficiency in the seed supplied by the OPs. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant titled as National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. Nalia Narsimha Rao, II (2009) 24 CPJ (NC), India Seed House Vs.Ramji Lal Sharma & Anr III (2008) CPJ 96 (NC), Zimidara Agro Centre and others Vs. Angrez Singh 2010 (1) CLT 494 are not applicable in the present case as in all the three cases there is a expert report which states that seeds are defective or inferior quality whereas in the present case the expert report does not state that the seed is of inferior quality. The judgment titled as Phi Seeds Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sri Subramanya & Anr. (V) (2015) CPJ 512 (NC) is also not applicable to the present case, as the facts of the same are different and distinguishable from the present case.
7. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances we find no merit in the complaint of the complainant and accordingly same is hereby dismissed, leaving 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 room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM Dt.20.02.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
