BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No: 286 of 2015. Date of Instt.: 06.11.2015.
Date of Order: 02.12.2016.
Ruli Ram son of Sh.Surja Ram resident of village Dharnia Tehil & District Fatehabad-97288-8731.
Complainant.
Versus
- Tulsi Seeds Private Limited Gumtur, Tulsi House # 6-4-6, Alundelpport 4/5n Gumtor 522001, Andhra Pradesh, India.
- New Kisan Sewa Kender, Main Chowk, Dhand Tehsil & District Fatehabad Mobile No.098127-69675.
Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President. Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Argued by: Sh.Subhash Bhadu, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Sanjeev Mehta, counsel for OP No.1. OP No.2 exparte.
ORDER:
The complainant Sh.Ruli Ram has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant with a view to get high yields of crops had purchased two bags (one bag of BT Parjati Tulsi 45 bearing Lot No.142/16054 and one bag of Parjati Om 3366 Plus bearing lot No.015112010) from the opposite party no.2 vide cash memo No.419 dated 13.05.2015 for Rs.900/- each on the assurance that seeds in question are unique and of good quality and the same will give a yield of at least 80 Maunds per acre. Complainant sown the above said seeds of both varieties in one acre of land and all due care was taken but seed failed to give fruitful results because plants of seeds Tulsi 45 were of irregular growth and having dissimilarities in height and expansion then seeds of Om 3366 Plus. It has been further averred that after about 2/3 months, some of the plants were not having proper fruits and the root cause of the same was sub-standard seeds supplied by the Ops. The complainant approached OP No.2 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 10.09.2005 and in their report they have opined that crop of complainant has been damaged from 70% to 75% because the plants which were grown from seeds Om 3366 Plus were having height about 5 feet to 5-1/2 feet with normal fruits and the plants grown from seeds of Tulsi 45 were having less height and less fruits besides disease of Patta Marod and White Makhi with no possibility to gain fruits in future. The complainant had been able to get only 40 Maunds per acre instead of 80 Munds per acre as assured by the OP No.2, therefore, he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.44800/-. He requested the Ops to compensate for the said loss and even got served legal notice upon them, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking direction to opposite parties to pay claim amount of Rs.44,800/- and further to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 18 % per annum. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A supported with affidavits of witnesses Ex.CW2/A, Ex.CW3/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and Annexure C1 & Annexure C2.
3. On being served, opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the matter in question cannot be decided in a summarily manner and there is no compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has been further submitted that the complainant is not owner of land comprised in Killa No.11/1 and 20/2 as the land comprised in khewat No.2230 is under the joint cultivation of many co-sharers. The alleged inspection report has no value in the eyes of law because it has not shown that which of the plant has been grown from seed Tulsi and which of the plant has been grown from other seeds. Moreso, no notice was ever given to the OP No.1 before inspection. The OP No.1 had sold the seeds to its distributor M/s Chaudhary Enterprises, Mandi Adampur in a sealed condition and further the same was sold to OP No.2 but the complainant has not made M/s Chuadhary Enterprises as a party to the complaint. It has been further submitted that the complainant has not placed J-Form qua selling of crop on the case file and as per khasra girdawari of land bearing khewat No.2230 almost land has not yielded cotton crop and has been recorded as Kharaba. Further the crop like cotton also depends upon agro climatic conditions, type of soil, water facility and effective use of fertilizer/pesticides etc. besides seed quality. 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. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A besides documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7. OP No.2 did not appear before this Forum hence, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.01.2016.
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, Subhash & Fateh Singh 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.419 (Ex.C1), bill No.463 (Ex.C2) another bill No.470 (Ex.C3), inspection report (Ex.C4), copy of jamabandi (Annexure C1) and application given to SDO for inspection of the crop (Annexure C2). On perusal of the record placed on the file it is established that the complainant had purchased two bags of seeds (one bag of BT Parjati Tulsi 45 bearing Lot No.142/16054 and one bag of Parjati Om 3366 Plus bearing lot No.015112010) from the opposite party no.2 vide cash memo No.419 dated 13.05.2015 for Rs.900/- each bag 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 C2 to SDO, Fatehabad. From the jamabandi Annexure C1 it is established that the complainant and his brother are in possession of land bearing khasra No.584, killa No.11/1,20/2. The Inspection report produced on behalf of the complainant Ex.C4 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.2 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 seeds 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 70-75 %. 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 Corporation Ltd. Vs. N.S.Sadhu 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 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. The appearing OP in its reply has specifically mentioned that the seeds were sold to the distributor M/s Chaudhary Enterprises, Mandi Adampur (Ex.R5) and further it sold the seeds in question to OP No.2 (Ex.R6), but the complainant has not made said firm as party to the present case despite the fact that it was necessary party for the justice decision of the present case. The complainant has failed to explain this fact for the reasons best known to him. Further perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands as the complainant in his pleadings has submitted that he has got 40 Maunds of cotton in one Acre in place of 80 Maunds. It is pertinent to mention here that 40 Maunds of yield of cotton in one acre is very good yield and almost maximum in one Acre. From any stretch of mind, it cannot be said that there is deficiency in the yield.
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.02.12.2016
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
