Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/527/2014

Ismail H Jamadar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Propertior. Shri Daneshwari Agro Cemtre Seeds, Fertilizers & Pesticides - Opp.Party(s)

A.B.Nesargi

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

Dated this 26^th day of April 2017

Complaint No. 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 526 &527/2014

 

 

Complainant/s:

 

Sri.Ningappa s/o.Dundappa Vajramatti,

Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Yaragatti, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

CC-436/2014

Sri.Mudakappa s/o.Yallappa Juganavar,

Age: 48years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Rainapur, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

CC-437/2014

 

Sri.Devareddi s/o.Bhimappa Kanaki,

Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Rainapur, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

CC-438/2014

 

Sri.Basappa s/o.Yamanappa Sidnal,

Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Rainapur, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

CC-439/2014

 

Sri.Kalmesh s/o.Gulappa Balareddy,

Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Jivapur, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

CC-440/2014

 

Sri.Krishnappa s/o.Hanamantappa Mikale,

Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Yaragatti, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

CC-441/2014

 

Sri.Venkappa s/o.Shashappa Hongal,

Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Soppadla, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

CC-442/2014

 

1.      Sri.Dilawarbaig s/o.Hasanbaig Jamadar,

Since deceased by his LRs

 

 

          1a)    Sri.Mohammadbaig s/o. Dilawarbaig Jamadar,

Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Yaragatti, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

 

1b)    Sri.Hussainbaig s/o. Dilawarbaig Jamadar,

Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Yaragatti, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

 

1c)     Sri.Kasimdbaig s/o. Dilawarbaig Jamadar,

Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Yaragatti, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

 

1d)    Smt.Katunbi w /o. Dadamiya Peerjade,

Age: 50 years, Occ: Household work,

R/o.Yaragatti, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

 

1e)     Smt.Gushanbi D /o. Dilawarbaig Jamadar,

Age: 47 years, Occ: Household work,

R/o.Yaragatti, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

 

CC-526/2014

 

          1a)    Sri.Ismail s/o. Hasanbaig Jamadar,

Age: minor, Occ: Student,

R/by. Hasanbaig s/o. Dilawarbaig Jamadar

Age: Major years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Yaragatti, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

CC-527/2014

 

 

(By Sri.A.B.Nesargi, Adv)

 

Vs.

 

Opponent/s:

 

1. The Proprietor, Shri Daneshwari Agro Centre,

Seeds, Fertilizers & Pesticides Retailer,

Jakat Complex, MG Road, Yaragatti,

Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.

 

2. Nethra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,

No.1, II Stage, Health Layout,

Srigandakada Kavalu, Magadi Road,

Vishwaneedam, Post:Bangalore

R/by its Proprietor.

 

(OP-1 by Sri.A.I.Jotawar, Adv &

OP-2 by Sri.V.B.Malannavar Adv.)

 

Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President

 

COMMON ORDER

            I. Though the complainant/s are different, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the lands. In all the cases the opponents are same, as shown in the cause title. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          1) The relevant facts of the cases are that the respective complainants have filed the complaints u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in banking service in supplying defective seeds.

          2) After service of notice O.P.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed objection and evidence of affidavit along with some documents.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaints, complainants have filed their affidavit and produced some documents.  

          4) We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant/s has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is in negative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

7) On the perusal contents of the complaint/s and affidavit filed by the complainant/s, the complainant/s have stated that, the complainants being agriculturists have purchased onion seeds from OP.1 belonging to OP.2 Nethra company and sown them in their respective lands but, the seeds which were sown in the complainants land did not gave any yield as the seeds supplied by OPs were sub standard quality. And thereafter the complainants approached OP.1 along with receipts & requested to pay compensation on account of failure of crops in not supplying good quality seeds and OP.1 did not show any inclination in considering the request of complainants and hence complainants approached Horticulture Department to assess the loss. Accordingly the officials of Horticulture Department visited the lands of complainants and took photographs, videograph & verified the things and gave the report that the the farmers including complainants who have sown Nethra company onion seeds have sustained loss as their crops have failed & hence complainants made a representation to government based on the said report to grant compensation & the same was considered by the Government. The complainants further submit that the Jindal Company onion seeds yielded 200 bags per acre and the rate per bag was from Rs.1500 to 3000/- and hence complainants suffered loss and considering the same the complainants have suffered loss to the extent of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs per acre. Hence the complainants issued legal notice to OPs to pay the same, but after receipt of the legal notice the OPs have not complied the same.  Therefore the complainants are constrained to file these complaints against OPs.

 

         8) The OP.1 filed his objections denying and disputing the complaints averments and contended that the OP.1 is a retail dealer of seeds and fertilizers & pesticides and he is selling various types of seeds and fertilizers & pesticides from the last 3 decades. This OP is not making any assurance or advertisement about the quality of the seeds. The customers on verification of such description and their experience will purchase the seeds and fertilizers & pesticides of their own choice. Whatever the seeds the company has supplied in their name the same are sold in the market under valid receipts. The OP.1 has sold onion seeds of Nethra company to various agriculturists and there is no any complaint from them about the quality. The complainants have informed about the same only at a time earlier to issuance of legal notice & the complainants while making alleged application to the Horticulture Department. The complainants have not tested the yield of the said seeds in any laboratory to ascertain the quality of the seeds and reasons for not getting sufficient yields. There are so many reasons for not getting the good yield i.e. no proper sowing, no proper lining of sowing, non supply of fertilizers time to time etc., as such it cannot be said that the seeds are sub standard. The OP.1 further contended that nobody will get yield of 200 bags of onion per acre and there was no rate of Rs.1500 to 3000/- range per bag. The complainants purposely have not stated how much yield per acre they have taken by sowing Netra Seeds and what was the amount of consideration received for the said yield. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaints.

 

       9) The OP.2 filed his objections denying and disputing the complaints averments and contended that the complainants have not produced any expert report to prove that the alleged onion seeds purchased by the complainants were sub standard. It is not the case of the complainants that the alleged onion seeds did not germinated at all. The complainants have not produced any material to show that they have taken all precautions from attack of pests and diseases to the onion crop and also regarding soil condition etc. Even improper use of fertilizers will cause damages to the crop. Above all the climatic condition also adversely affects the crop. The OP.2 further contended that if there were any problems as alleged by complainants then they ought to have been informed the same to OPs and ought to have got their field inspected at the right time when they observed any problem in the  crops. But the OPs have not received any complaints from the complainants. The report of officials of Horticulture Department is on one sided, as they have not followed mandatory provisions of Seeds Act, 1966. Before marketing the onion seeds, the same are uniformly tested and the laboratory of OP.2 in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Seed Testing Manual for confirming the germination, genetic purity and physical purity stands prescribed by Central Government under Seeds Act, 1966. Even the OP.2 has mentioned its customer care mobile numbers on each packet of seeds to enable the farmers to reciprocate or covey their grievances, if any. As per Sec.13(1)(c) of CP Act it is mandatory  that in case where allegation are being levelled at seeds, the same are to be sent to the appropriate laboratory for testing and then only a conclusion be made thereof. Otherwise, simply by looking with naked eyes, it cannot be said that seeds are defective. But the complainants have not tested the seeds from appropriate laboratory. The OP.2 further contended that germination of seeds would depend on several factors such as climate, type of soil, water & irrigation facilities, quality of fertilizers etc. The variation in the  condition of crop in the  same lot of seed at different fields may not be attributed to the quality of seed but the other factors including high salt concentration, brackish water, moisture content at the time of sowing, sowing methods and soil physical condition. This OP is producing the seeds for the last 45 years and has earned good reputation among the farmers and at any cost this OP will not even dream of supplying sub standard seeds to its farmers. The onion seeds are of open pollinated variety and it has to be grown in proper season and if the area receives more rain, the crop fails and also the crop equally fails due to less rain. As per Seeds Act, 1966, companies are liable only if germination fails. The alleged records produced by the complainants shows that no panchanama has been drawn when the alleged expert committee has visited the alleged lands. Moreover the  complainants have not produced any documents to show that the OPs and revenue officers were present at the time of visits alleged to have been made by the alleged expert committee. The complainants have also not produced record of rights of their lands. As per the meterological report from June to September 2013 there was heavy rain fall and from October to December 2013 there was low rainfall in Belgaum district. Therefore there is possibility of low yield/ failure of onion crop. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.2 and prays for dismissal of complaints.

 

          10)    On perusal of contents of complaints & objections filed by OPs & evidence affidavit of both parties it is not in dispute that the complainants purchased onion seeds from OP-1 manufactured by OP-2 & the same were son by the complainants in their respective agricultural lands.  However the allegation of the complainants is that the seeds which were sown in the lands of complainants did not gave any yield as the seeds supplied by OPs were sub standard. The OPs denied the complaints averments & contended that the complainants have not produced any expert report to prove the alleged onion seeds purchased by the complainants were sub standard. It is not the case of the complainants that the alleged onion seeds did not germinated at all. It is the burden on the part of complainants to prove that the seeds supplied by OPs were sub standard. To prove their case the complainants have filed an application before the Director of Horticulture University, Navanagar, Bagalkot. As per the request of complainants the Assistant Professors of Department of Entomology KRC College of Harticulture, Arabhavi, visited the lands of the complainant. After inspecting the crops in the lands of the complainants, issued report. As per the report, at the time of bulbing of onions there are flowers in the said onion crop i.e. due to the sub standard seeds & there is chance of mixture of variety of seeds & further stated that, flowing in the said crop may be due to change of climate.

 

11)    On perusal of contention of OPs, at the time of inspection of onion crops by the officers of Horticulture Department, the complainants have not issued prior notice to OPs to be present at the time of inspection. As per the decision reported in 2013 (2) 703 NC Bantaram Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Co. & Anr. – no notice was given to respondents for the alleged inspection time, the complainant has failed to prove that the seeds supplied by respondents were inferior quality. In these cases in CC 441/14, 438/14, 437/14, 439/14 the officers of Horticulture Department had visited the lands. In CC 436/14, 440/14, 442/14, 526/14, 527/14 the officers of Horticulture Department have not visited the lands mentioned in these cases. Only on observing the crops by naked eyes no one can ascertain that the seeds supplied OPs are sub standard. The OPs have contended that as per Sec.13(1) (c ) of CP Act it is mandatory that in case where allegations leveled against the seeds, the same to be sent to appropriate laboratory for testing and then only conclusion be made thereof. Otherwise, simply by looking with naked eyes, it cannot be said that seeds are defective.

 

12)    The advocate for OP-2 relied upon the decisions reported in

1. IV (2005 CPJ Pg. 47 NC
2. II (2005) CPJ Pg.13 (SC)
3. II (2005) CPJ Pg.94 (NC)
4. III (2011 CPJ Pg.99 NC
5. 2013 (2) CPR Pg.703 NC
6. Seeds Act 1966 pg.10 to 13, 43 to 44, 54 to 55
7. IV (2009) CPJ Pg.98
8. II (2012) CPJ Pg.373 NC
9. II (2012) CPJ Pg.297 NC
10. II (2012 CPJ Pg.436 NC

In these cases the complainants not produced sample seeds for laboratory test as per Sec.13(1) (c ) of CP Act. If failed to send sample seeds to proper laboratory and by obtaining report, since it was not done in such circumstances complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. Undisputedly the complainants have not got seeds tested in any laboratory under the provisions of Sec.13(1) (c) of CP Act. They had also not moved necessary application before the concerned authorities for getting the seeds by the appropriate laboratory. Further the report of Horticulture Department cannot be accepted as no notice to assist them with the inspection. Mere observation in the certificate that yield was less due to defective nature of seeds is not an evidence. As per the decision reported in II 2005 CPJ 94 NC & other decisions that inferior quality of seeds has to be proved by the laboratory test. The complainants failed to send the onion seeds for laboratory test which is mandatory. In these cases the Horticulture Department officers had visited the lands of the complainants, it was exparte since notice of the visit and inspection was not given to OPs, neither OPs nor the representative was present at the time of inspection, such report cannot be looked into. The complainants have produced photos & CDs showing the onion crop, but on perusal of report of Horticulture Department officers, due to climatic condition there is a chance of flowing in the onion crop. As per the decision reported in 2005 II CPJ 13 –Haryana Seeds Corporation vs. Sadhu & Anr- yield of the crop depend upon method of sowing, sowing time, use of seeds rate, spacing, use of manure, water facility, water control, pest control & other material facts for consideration of the case, however the complainants have not followed the above said procedures.

 

          13)    On perusal of contents of complaints, the complainants have not alleged when they have sown the onion seeds, nature of lands and which was the harvesting time, without harvesting in time there is a chance of flowering in the onion crop. On perusal of contents of complaints, complainants have alleged that due to defective seeds they could not get yield from their lands. However on perusal of documents produced by the complainants there in mention that there is flowering in the crop, without harvesting the crop the complainants cannot say yield of the crop. However on perusal of photos the complainants have not harvested the onion crops. The complainants failed to examine the seeds through appropriate laboratory & not produced expert report before the forum. The decisions relied on by the advocate for OP.2 are applicable to the case of OP.2. On perusal of affidavit and contents of the objections there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs. The complainants have failed to prove the contents of the complaints through reliable evidence.

 

 

 

14)    Accordingly the following

 

ORDER

          The complaints are dismissed. No order as tocosts.

Original order be kept in Compt.436/2014 & its copy in other connected cases. 

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 26^th day of April 2017)

 

 

 

MSR