Date of filing:- 07/01/2016.

Date of Order:- 25/09/2017.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No.01 of 2016.

1. Kunti Pradhan, W/o Dibakara Pradhan,

2. Jayadev Pradhan, S/o Dibakara Pradhan,

3. Dibakara Pradhan, S/o Gobinda Pradhan,

   all resident of Dharol, Po. Mandosil, Ps. Paikmal, Dist. Bargarh

..... ..... ..... Complainants.

• V e r s u s -

The President, Jamseth S.C.S. Ltd., At/Po. Jamseth, Ps/Tahasil- Paikmal Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties.

For the Complainant:- Sri S.K.Sahu, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party:- Sri D.Acharya, Advocate with other Advocates.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).

Dt.25/09/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-

Presented by Sri P. K. Dash, Member:-

The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the brief fact of the complaint is described here under.

The Complaint contends that the Complainants have purchased three packets of paddy seeds weighing 60(sixty)kg, 80(eighty)kg and 100(hundred)kg each from the society of Opposite Party. The Complainants observing all procedures and guidelines of cultivation, sowed the purchased seeds in his cultivation field, which after many days also do not germinate, the fact of which was made grievance in writing before the Opposite Party on Dt. 08/08/2015 by the Complainant which was duly acknowledged by the Secretary of Opposite Party society.

Further the complaint contends that due to non germination of the seeds purchased from the Opposite Party, the ensuring crops of the Complainants totally failed, as a result of which the Complainants sustained heavy financial loss which put them to absolute starvation. That the Complainants approached the Opposite Party for several time to solve their cause but the Opposite Party paid no heed, for which the Complainants served pleader notice on the Opposite Party calling upon him to compensate their loss but the Opposite Party remain silent over the matter and did not act upon in any manner. Such acts of Opposite Party i.e. by selling substandard seeds to the Complainant and after non germination of the seeds and crop failure his inaction to the Complainants problem amounts to both deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party and for such acts of Opposite Party the Complainants sustained mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss which they have moderately calculate to be Rs. 2,40,000/-(Rupees two lakh forty thousand)only besides price of the paddy.

The Complainants thus seek the redressal of the Forum to direct the Opposite Party to pay the Complainants a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-(Rupees two lakh forty thousand)only besides cost of the seed and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only for litigation expenses.

The Complainants in support of their contention relied upon the xerox copies of the following documents:-

1. Pleader notice of Advocate Sushil Kumar Sahu sent to the OP (1 sheet)

2. Copies of cash memo Sl No. 204813, 204814 and 204815 (3 sheets).

3. Copy of slip of certified seed bearing No. 643098, 642959 and 643028.

4. Copy of slip of O.S.S.C. Ltd bearing No. 1932642, 1932731 and 2139068 .

5. Copy of Regd. Post and A.D. slip.

6. Postal receipt Dt. 21/08/2015.(1 sheet)

7. Postal AD card showing receipt of pleader Notice Dt. 21/08/2015.

    

Being noticed the Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and filed his version denying allegations of the complaint.

The Opposite Party in his version contends that the seed production officer Bargarh who supply seeds for sale to the members of the service Co-operative Society Ltd is solely liable and responsible for the impurity and quality of the seeds and the Complaint is bad for his non-joinder. The Opposite Party in this complaint is an authorized seed dealer of O.S.S.C. Ltd and is not responsible in any manner to the complaint of the Complainant. Further the version reveals that the Complainant in spite of sowing entire quantity of seeds in his land could have sowed a small quantity of seed and waited for germination period of 3(three) to 4(four) days and in case of the failure in germination of seeds he could have returned the rest seeds to the production office for verification or else he could have sowed some other seeds in the same land without leaving the cultivation land barren.

The Opposite Party further in his version contends that the germination of seeds depends on many factors like weather, temperature etc and the Complainant could not have followed the proper process for germination which could have been the cause of failure of germination. Neither the other members of the society who had purchased the same seeds from the society had complaint in any manner nor there was any mis-reputation of the same brand of seeds by the Govt. or Private agency or by media. Further version contends that the Complainant did not take the expert help for preparation of seedling for high yielding of paddy. That Odisha Seeds Corporation Ltd after all inspection and laboratory test of the seeds for its purity, quality and standard issues to the dealer for sale. That non germination of seeds may not be for quality of seeds but possibly for others reasons like water quantity, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, Sowing methodology, Moisture contents at the time of sowing which could have been taken precaution by the Complainant and while sowing the seeds.

Further the version contends that for any complaint regarding defective seeds, Complaints can only be filed under the provision of Seeds Act- 1966 not under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the District Forum lacks Jurisdiction in adjudicating the case. Further more as per sec 13 (1) ( c ) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for any allegation as to defect in goods the District Forum obtain sample of good seal it and there send it to appropriate laboratory for its test and expert opinion. The Complainant has failed to produce any expert opinion as to defect in the germination of seeds. More so the Complainants have not mention the Mouza, Area, Kisam of the land scheduled where they claimed to be sowed the seeds and it is also false that any grievance in writing on Dt. 08/08/2018 was made to the Opposite Party for its acknowledgment. That the complaint petition neither shows the date of sowing the seeds and up to how many days it was not germinated nor percentage of germination of the seeds.

The Opposite Party in his version denied the allegation of the Complainant for non germination of seeds the crop faded in that season, as a result of which the Complainants sustained financially, mentally and were put to starvation due to crop loss. The version further reveals that the Opposite Party is a farmers society and for benefit of farmers sale the seeds as per government order without any margin. That the assessment of loss sustained and claim by the Complainants is without any proper basis and excessive. That the claim of the Complainant is without any proof of fact. In view of the above the Opposite Party seeks the redresal of the forum to dismiss the Complaint.

The Opposite Party relies upon the document mentioned below :-

1. Xerox copy of Licence to carry on the business of dealer in seeds Dt. 04/05/2015 bearing Licence No. ODBAR 4/2015-16/ 0104/DA and FP (o) issued by Dist. Agriculture Officer, Padampur.

    

Gone through the entire Case record, vividly perused the documents, memo of arguments and referred the Seeds Act-1966, Seeds (control) Act-1983 along with the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986, the Forum found the issues likely to be decided in this case are as follows :-

1. Whether the complaint is successful in bringing the allegation of deficiency in service against the Opposite Party and whether the Opposite Party is liable for rendering service to the Complainant ?

2. What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

In answering issue No.1(one)

The seeds purchased from the Opposite Party society was of impure and substandard quality for which when sowed in the cultivation filed did not germinate, as a result of which the crop failed and the Complainants sustained heavy financial loss. The Complainants to substantiate their allegations ought to have brought evidence in two folds, first to prove the seeds purchased were substandard and second those seeds did not germinate after sowing for which crop failed. The Complainants could have made allegation before the seed inspector to seize the seeds of that particular brands which were purchased by them and to draw sample of seeds meant for sale and to send those seeds to seed analyst in the seed testing laboratory if the seeds purchased by the Complainants were not available with the Complainant at that time as per Seed (control) Act-1983 and Seeds Act-1966 or to have submit the sample of seeds before the forum with a prayer to pass an order to send those seeds to seed testing laboratory, which the Complainants have not done. More so the Complainants could have draw the attention of the Orissa seeds corporation Ltd to take necessary steps against the seeds licensee. Secondly the Complainants have not proved in any manner that the seeds purchased from the Opposite Party had been sown in any particular field or fields with field inspection report of appropriate Govt. agency that the seeds did not germinate as a result of which sustained huge financial loss. The Complainants did not opt to follow any method to elicite evidence to prove their allegations. Simply filing invoice of purchase of seeds and some other documents which are not able to prove their allegations are not sufficient to bring the allegations of the Complaint, the issue No.1(one) is answered as above.

In answering issue No.2(two)

During the discussion of issue No.1(one) this issue has already been decided and there is no necessity of discussion on this issue further.

Traversing deep into the matter and evidence available on record the Forum found the Complaint without any merit and dismissed the Complaint.

Complainant disposed off accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)

            M e m b e r.

                                                                                  I agree,                                                             I agree, 

                                                                        (Ajanta Subhadarsinee)                               (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

                                                                               M e m b e r(w).                                                P r e s i d e n t.