BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.91 of 2016
Date of Institution : 22.03.2016
Date of Decision : 22.02.2017
Makhan Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh, resident of village Raike Kalan, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Zimidara Khad Bhandar, Shop No.62, New Grain Market, Sirsa.
- Smt. Suman Bansal w/o Sh. Sunil Bansal, Prop. Zimidara Khad Bhandar, Shop No.62, New Grain Market, Sirsa.
- Sunil Kumar Bansal s/o Subash Bansal (Power of Attorney of Smt. Suman Bansal Prop. Zimidara Khad Bhandar, Shop No.62, New Grain Market, Sirsa)
- M/s Antal Agro Seeds, Chourmastpur, Registered Office 207, New Mandi Township, Ambala City through its Sole Proprietor Hardeep Singh s/o Ranjit Singh.
- Hardeep Singh s/o Ranjit Singh, sole proprietor of M/s Antal Agro Seeds, r/o House No.218, Sector 9, Ambala City.
...…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. Mukesh Kaliramana, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that he is an agriculturist. In the year 2012, he was cultivating land measuring 13 acres which is in the name of his father Mukhtiar Singh. In the first week of May, 2012, the opposite parties conducted sale promotion camp in village Raike Kalan to promote the sale of their paddy seed variety PB-06-1401 F/S prepared by op no.3 and made big claims about its quality and output. They claimed that if the farmers sow their said seed, then they would get much yield of 30 quintals per acre and the crop produced from said seeds is resistant to all types of plant and diseases. The complainant and several other farmers of village Raike Kalan believed their claims and became ready to purchase above said paddy seed from the ops. As the complainant and other farmers were purchasing the seed in bulk, the ops promised to supply it at their village. It is further averred that in the first week of May, 2012, the complainant booked order for said paddy seed variety PB-6-1401 F/s with opposite party no.1 through op no.3. On 12.5.2012, five bags weighing 10 Kg. each i.e. total 50 Kg. seed was supplied to the complainant at village Raike Kalan by op no.1 through op no.3 vide receipt No.3265 for total amount of Rs.2750/-. The complainant paid the total amount of Rs.2750/- to op no.3 at village Raike Kalan. The complainant remained in touch with the ops and their authorized representatives and fully adhered to the information provided and prescriptions/ procedures advised by them for sowing the crop and followed their norms. It is further averred that though the paddy crop raised from the seed supplied by the ops did not suffer from any disease/ infection, however, the plants gained abnormal height of almost 7 feet. But at the time of maturity of crop, almost all the plants failed to develop panicles resulting in complete failure of crop. Observing the abnormality in crop height and failure to bear panicles, the complainant informed the ops. The above said abnormal height and failure to develop panicles were also seen in entire paddy crop sown by other farmers of his village. The complainant contacted ops No.1 & 3 and authorized representatives of the ops and informed them about it and requested them to provide some solution of the problems. The ops No.1, 3 and authorized representative asked the complainant to prune paddy crop from its top and to wait for some time. Acting on their advice, complainant pruned his paddy crop from the top and waited for some time. However, even after passage of time, the crop did not improve and failed to develop panicles. The complainant and other farmers alongwith some respectable person of the village met with the ops on three occasions but the ops adopted evasive approach and kept on making false assurances. It is further averred that against all the assurances given by the ops, the paddy crop failed to show any sign of improvement. Rather due to its abnormal height, plants started falling on the ground. The complainant and other farmers of the village made representations to Chief Agriculture Officer, Punjab Agricultural University, Bathinda on 1.10.2012 for obtaining expert opinion and requested to make field inspection. They also informed the ops about said representatives but the ops did not bother to respond. Then Sh. Sushil Kumar, Agriculture Officer Block Sangat alongwith Hardev Singh JE Sangat visited the fields of complainant on 1.10.2012 and made report No.564 dated 8.10.2012 to Chief Agriculture Officer, District Bathinda. As per report, crop was found to be in healthy state but still it did not develop panicles and if rare plants developed panicles, they were also empty without rice. The report concluded complete crop failure and also that there was no hope for any yield. It is further averred that thereafter Sh. Sushil Kumar, Agriculture Officer, Block Sangat alongwith Sh. Hardev Singh, JE again visited the fields of complainant on 19.10.2012 and reported 90% crop failure, vide his report No.588 dated 22.10.2012 to Chief Agriculture Officer, District Bathinda. Thereafter, the complainant and other farmers sent a representation dated 15.10.2012 to ops through registered post informing them the contents of the report. They also intimated the ops to get the fields inspected from any expert of their choice and kept the crops standing waiting any response from the ops but the ops did not bother to respond. Then, they met with the ops and demanded compensation for the losses caused on account of defective and spurious paddy seeds sold by them but the ops refused to listen them and did not admit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and refused to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him. It is further averred that the complainant and his co-villages also submitted an application to the S.S.P. Bathinda, who got conducted an inquiry in the matter. On the basis of said enquiry and after obtaining report from the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda, the SSP Bathinda ordered registration of an FIR in the matter. Accordingly, FIR No.50 dated 25.10.2012 was registered against the ops in police station Nandgarh under Section 420 IPC. The complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.47671/- per acre, details of which are given in Annexure C1. Thus, the total expenditure incurred by the complainant comes out to Rs.6,19,723/-. As per the claim made by the ops at the time of selling the paddy seed, the complainant expected yield of 30 quintals per acre and as per market price of Rs.2500/- per quintal, the complainant would have get Rs.9,75,000/-. The ops are jointly and severally liable to refund the entire amount received from complainant alongwith amount of Rs.9,75,000/- on account of loss of crop and also liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. It is further averred that complainant filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda on 4.3.2013 which was dismissed vide order dated 12.3.2013 on the ground that District Consumer Forum Bathinda has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. Subsequently, complainant alongwith one another complainant Kulwant Rai filed a joint complaint before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula on 26.3.2014. During the pendency of said complaint, some legal difficulties arose regarding maintainability of joint complaint before Hon’ble State Commission and because of those legal problems complainant withdrew the complaint on 9.12.2015 with a request for permission to withdraw the complaint and to file same before appropriate Forum which was granted. Hence, this complaint before this Forum. It is also pertinent to mention here that complainant also filed an application for condonation of delay as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, 1995 (3) SCC 583 and the said application was allowed.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It has also been submitted that no defect in the seed is proved. The alleged inspection report prepared by the officials of the Agriculture Department is not in accordance to the letter memo No.52-70/TA (SS) dated PKL the 3.1.2002 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana, whereby it was conveyed to the Deputy Directors of Agriculture that fields of the complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and the report will be submitted to the office of Director, Agriculture immediately after inspection. But in this case, the officers of Agriculture department while inspecting the field of complainant did not follow the above instructions. So, the alleged spot inspection report is no report in the eyes of law and same is liable to be ignored. Besides it, the alleged spot inspection report is highly defective one and cannot be used against the ops because in the report they have not mentioned the killa numbers and khasra numbers of the land which was inspected by them. In the absence of any expert report and finding based on scientific and technical basis, it cannot be proved that seeds are defective and only on inference, it cannot be ascertained that seeds are defective. There was/is no defect in the quality of seed as the seed is certified by the Govt. Agency i.e. Haryana State Seed Certification Agency, Karnal. Proper procedure has been followed by the ops for the production of seed under the supervision of the seed certification officer appointed by the Govt. Moreover, the complainant has nowhere mentioned in the complaint specific killa numbers and square numbers, wherein he has allegedly sowed the paddy seeds purchased from op no.1. The non mentioning of the specific killa numbers and khasra number is serious defect in the complaint. It has been further submitted that variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moister content at the sowing time and soil physical condition. The complainant has not stated anything about these things and has failed to follow the guidelines as provided in the literature/ broacher. It has been further submitted that complaint is bad for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act as he has not furnished the report of any expert/ laboratory test report about the quality of the seeds. The variety of seed P.B. 6 (Pusa) 1401 is not recommended for cultivation in the State of Punjab as per guidelines of the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India and also not recommended by the Punjab Agriculture Department. Farmers had bought the seeds from Sirsa of their own will and had not followed the proper practices for growing the variety which is new to them as it was introduced by the Govt. of India in the year 2010. The complainant purchased the paddy seeds from op no.1 at Sirsa. The ops did not organize any sale promotion came at village Raike kalan for promotion of their paddy seed. The complainant sowed very less quantity of seed in his land. The recommended yield per acre is 15- 15½ quintals. Since the complainant sowed very less quantity of seed in his land, so he could not expect/get the standard quality of yield. Moreover, as per the version of complainant, the plants gained height of almost seven feet, which is clearly a result of using excess fertilizers doses and also it is important to mention here that there is no paddy crop which is of fodder nature means if a paddy crop is being raised by a farmer, it will surely get panicles/ flowering. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copies of documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R19, affidavit Ex.R20 and documents Ex.R21 to Ex.R24.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on file copies of inspection reports dated 8.10.2012 Ex.C8 and dated 22.10.2012 Ex.C9 conducted by the officers of Agriculture department. We have gone through the said reports of the officers of Agriculture department. It would not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by them. From above said reports,
the identity of the land can not be established and such reports do 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 loss of crop.
7. Further, the variety of seed P.B. 6 (Pusa) is not recommended for cultivation in the State of Punjab as per guidelines of the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India and the complainant has failed to prove that ops organized any sale promotion camp at village Raike Kalan. Further more, inspection report has no evidentiary value particularly when representative of ops’ has not been joined at the time of inspection and inspection committee has not given any opportunity to express their opinion about the said seeds. The seed in question has also not been got tested from any laboratory to prove that seeds supplied by ops were defective. In this regard we are also fortified with the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Prem Vs. Seed Works India Pvt. Ltd. & anr. 2016 (4) CLT 507 relied upon by learned counsel for ops. The authorities cited by learned counsel for complainant in cases titled as Western Agri Seeds Vs. Ramesh Shyamraoji Dhote & anr. RP No.1478 of 2016 decided on 19.9.2016, M/s National Seeds Corp. Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and anr. 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 838 and in case Nath Seeds Ltd. and ors. Vs. The Malaprabha Neerwani 1994 (2) CPC 227 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case.
8. So, 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:22.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
