BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.169 of 2014
Date of Institution : 3.12.2014
Date of Decision : 24.1.2017
Gopi Ram now deceased through his LRs (i) Shakuntla widow (ii) Manish (iii) Monu sons of Shri Gopi Ram residents of village Nirban Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Uda Ram Pawan Kumar, Shop No.1 (side) New Mandi Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ partner.
2. M/s Nav Bharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 1st Floor, Vasu Kanan Complex, Opposite Gujrat Vidyapeeth, Ashram Road, Ahmdabad.
...…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. K.R.Pilania, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. N.K.Daroliya, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
Initially, the present complaint was filed by Gopi Ram son of Shri Ram Sarup against op no.1 and after his death his legal representatives Smt. Shakuntla etc. have been impleaded in the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is agriculturist and depends upon the income of agricultural land. He had purchased two packets seed of cotton AA-H-I each weighing 400 grams from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.900/- and had also purchased Jawar HB seed for Res.270/- vide bill No.37 dated 3.5.2014. The complainant had sowed the cotton seed in his one acre of land comprised in Muraba No.94 Killa No.4 (8-0) as per guideline/ instructions issued by op no.1 but due to substandard seed, there were no flower/tinda on the cotton crop and the matter was reported to op no.1 but the partner/ proprietor of the firm did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant had given water to the crops, sprayed pesticides and fertilizer on crops but to no effect. On 24.9.2014, complainant moved an application to the Deputy Agriculture Director, Sirsa for taking necessary action against the ops and for inspection of his crops and on that application Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa was deputed for inspection of the spot and to submit his report. Accordingly, he visited the spot and submitted his report that the height of the plants was of 9 to 10’ and there was no flower in the crops at that time, the other farmers in surrounding area were harvesting the crops and that there is 90% loss of crop of the complainant. The complainant has suffered loss of Rs.one lac due to supply of defective/sub standard seed to him. He has also spent more than Rs.50,000/- in sowing the crops. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.one lac for loss of crops and Rs.50,000/- which were spent on crop and Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that yield depends upon so many factors like method of sowing of crop, irrigation, quality and kind of the land and environmental changes etc. and variation of crop cannot be attributed to the quality of seed/ pesticides. The complainant has failed to follow the guidelines as provided in the literature/ broacher. The answering op is only Dealer and he sells the products of company including the seed/pesticides in packed condition as received from the company. The seeds namely AAH1 was manufactured by M/s Nav Bharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Ahmadabad which has not been impleaded as a party. The complainant never reported any defect in the seed to the op and he has not attached any report of the expert/ chemical examination of the seeds. The op had no notice in respect of alleged field inspection and alleged report is not admissible as per law. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of written statement by op no.1, complainant impleaded said M/s Nav Bharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd. being manufacturer of seeds in question as op no.2 in the present complaint. Notice of the complaint was issued to op no.2 but none appeared on behalf of op no.2 and therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
4. In evidence, Manish son of Gopi Ram tendered his affidavit Ex.C1. Ld. counsel for complainant has tendered copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of application Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 30.10.2014 Ex.C4, inspection report Ex.C5, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C6. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.R1, affidavit of op no.1 Ex.R2, documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R11, affidavit of Sh. Har Kishan @ Kishan Lal Ex.R12, affidavit of Sh. Karan Ex.R13, and copy of notification dated 8.6.1999 Ex.R14.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The main issue in this complaint as alleged by complainant is that cotton seed sold by the opposite party no.1 was defective and sub standard seed and due to that seed, his total cotton crop has been affected and he suffered huge financial loss. The complainant case depends upon the inspection report Ex.C5 of the Agriculture department. We carefully have gone through the report 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 report Ex.C5 the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. Holding these views we have relied upon the observation of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in a case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 in which it was clearly 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 and it can be said that the complainant had really suffered any loss due to defective seed.
7. Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department, Haryana dated 3.1.2002, issued to all the Deputy Director in the State, it was directed by the Director Agriculture, Haryana that inspection team should be consisting of total four members, two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. However, there is nothing on file to suggest that any notice prior to inspection of the spot was given to the concerned seed agency and therefore, report Ex.C5 is defective one and is not acceptable.
8. Further more, there is nothing on file to suggest that complainant suffered loss of crop due to defective seed sold by op no.1. The inspection report Ex.C5 does not pin point any defect towards the seed in question. Whereas, the opposite party No.1 has produced affidavits of Har Kishan @ Kishan Lal resident of village Saharani, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa and Karan resident of village Burj Bhangu, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa as Ex.R12 and Ex.R13 who have testified in their affidavits that they had purchased the cotton seed having batch No.31055 manufactured by op no.2 and they obtained proper yield more than their acceptance and the seed was of high quality and there was no defect in the seeds. So, it cannot be said that complainant suffered loss of crop due to defective and sub standard seed.
9. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but 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:24.1.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
