BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.190 of 2016
Date of Institution : 04.8.2016
Date of Decision : 09.03.2017.
Krishan Kumar son of Sh. Ram Sarup s/o Sh. Siri Chand, r/o Rori, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Sh. Tirth Kumar s/o Sh. Satpal, Prop. M/s Jindal Trd. Co. Rori (Sirsa)
2. M/s Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 4th mile stone, Sirsa road Hisar through Sh. Mohinder Nain.
3. Quality Control Inspector o/o D.D.A Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA ……………………..PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.K. Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Saini, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Name of op no.3 deleted vide order dated 22.9.2016.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that complainant is a small farmer having six acres of agricultural land. The land of complainant is comprised in Murabba no.78&83 in revenue area of village Bhima and Maldi alongwith his other brothers and he cultivates the said land for his livelihood and his family is also dependent on the income of this land. That on advertisement and instigation of company employee and dealer he purchased 14 packets of B.T. cotton Jai B.G1 (Ankur seed) batch/lot no.19621 on 5.5.2015 for Rs.11550/- vide bill no.9833 from opposite party no.1 for sowing in his field. It is further averred that quality of this seed was very poor so he complained to dealer as well as representative of company but they all time assured the complainant about best quality of seeds but being unsatisfied he checked the bill etc. and astonished to know that dealer issue bill of 5.5.2014 instead of 2015. It shows his malafide intention and it seems that he sold the old seed, so quality of this seed was very poor. Despite best labour and fertilizers etc. the complainant got yield of 10 mounds in all 6 acres whereas the yield of his all neighbors was up to 20 to 25 mounds per acre. Being unsatisfied, he complained to DDA Sirsa and other authorities on 10.9.2015 and also complained on C.M. Window but to no effect. On 28.9.2015 Quality Control Officer, Sirsa visited his field in the presence of dealer and one company representative and he was agreed with the poor performance of seed. That after meeting with dealer and company person, the department after passing many days issued a fake report in favour of company and they totally ignored the poor results of seed. The crop of complainant was very poor as boll size of tinda was very small and tinda was not properly blossomed. Even if version of department is accepted, then CLV should not have attacked on B.T. cotton and it shows the failure of B.T class in the seed, so the ops cannot escape from their liability. That a panchayat was also convened in the village which was attended by Sarpanch, complainant, officer of department, company representative, dealer and many other persons and ops confessed their fault and ultimately panahcyat ordered to ops to compensate the complainant but they declined to do so. The complainant has suffered total loss of about Rs. three lakhs and has also suffered harassment and therefore he is entitled to compensation from the ops. The complainant approached ops in this regard many times but to no effect. He also got issued legal notice on 6.6.2016 upon ops but all in vain. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It has also been submitted that answering op also sold the seeds of same quality and of same lot to other agriculturist and there is no complaint from any of them. Rather the plants have well grown up and healthy crop was repaed by those agriculturist. The crops of area have been damaged due to natural calamities and the Govt. of Haryana has distributed compensation to the agriculturists including complainant as per loss assessed by revenue authorities by way of special girdawari. The answering op had sold the original quality of seed of same lot which has been purchased by him from op no.2 vide invoice no.2467 dated 128.4.2015. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement took certain preliminary objections. It has been submitted that complainant at no point of time reported any defect in the seeds to the answering op and even no intimation was ever given by the complainant to answering op about defects in the seeds. The answering op was not given any notice of alleged inspection nor was joined in the alleged spot inspection of the field of complainant. In this report, the officers of Agriculture Officers have reported that the plants were infested with patta marod (leave curling) disease. This disease cannot be attributed to the quality of seed rather the same may be due to soil condition, moisture content and climate conditions. There was no defect in the seed sold to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Sh. Devdas Ex-Panch Ex.C2, affidavit of Sh. Makhan Singh Ex.C3, khasra girdawari Ex.C4, copy of bill Ex.C5, copies of applications Ex.C6, Ex.C7, copy of inspection report Ex.C8, copy of inspection report Ex.C9 and copy of legal notice Ex.C10. On the other hand, ops no.1 & 2 produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A, copy of invoice Ex.R1, copy of bill Ex.R2, copy of invoice Ex.R3, affidavit of Sh. Padam Singh Area Sales Manager Ex.R4, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The main dispute in this complaint is that cotton seed sold by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant was defective and due to that seed, he has suffered loss of crop. The complainant has placed on file inspection reports Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 on file. We carefully have gone through the reports of the officers of Agriculture department. No sample of seed was sent to the Lab. for analysis. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by them. From reports, the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. In an authority of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 it was observed by their Lordship that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant simply on the basis of a self serving affidavit when there is no evidence with respect to the less germination.
7. Further, as per letter of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dated 3.1.2002, issued to all the Deputy Directors in the State, it has been directed by the Director Agriculture that fields of complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/ KVK, HAU. However, there is nothing on file to suggest that any notice was issued to the opposite parties before spot inspection and as such the report is defective one. Moreover, in the reports Ex.C8 and Ex.C9, it is mentioned that there was effect of whitefly and leave curl disease in the field of complainant. Therefore, the reports also do not pin point any defect towards the seeds in question. It is also not proved on file that op no.1 sold old seed to the complainant. It is mentioned in the inspection report that year on the bill as 2014 instead of 2015 has been mentioned by mistake.
8. Thus, complainant has failed to prove his case. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby 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 after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 09.3.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
