BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.79 of 2018.
Date of institution: 27.03.2018.
Date of decision: 25.3.2019.
Harikesh son of Devi Ram, resident of Village Chandana, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- National Seeds Corporation near Mahabir Jain Chowk, Jind Road, Kaithal through its salesman/authorized Signatory.
- National Seeds Corporation Limited (A Government of India Undertaking) Registered and Head Office Pusa Complex, New Delhi through its MD.
- National Seeds Corporation Limited, Regional Office Plot No.388, Phase IX Industrial Area Mohali, through its authorized person.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N. Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. R.K. Gill, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Kabir Dhall, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant purchased four bags of HD-3086 (40x4) seeds of wheat for a consideration of Rs.3360/- vide bill No.45140 dt. 13.11.2017. The complainant had sown the said wheat crop in his field on 14.11.2017 as per instructions of Op No.1. The germination of above-said seed of wheat HD-3086 was 55-60% only in 1.75 acre. The complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 and complained the matter of less germination of the wheat seeds, but OP No.1 did not pay any heed on the request of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application before Agriculture Director, Kaithal to conduct the inspection of wheat crop and on 02.02.2018 a committee headed by Deputy Director Agriculture inspected the wheat crops of complainant in the presence of complainant but the officials of Ops No.2 & 3 did not come present at the time of inspection knowingly and intentionally. The inspection committee reported the loss about 55-60% in 1.75 acres. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the germination and yield of the seed depends on various factors like the time of sowing, type of soil, practices adopted for sowing, topography of field and the quality and the time and manner of application of weedicide, insecticides and pesticides; that the mandatory instructions of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dt. 03.01.2002 has not been complied with, according to which the fields of the farmer are to be inspected by Committee comprising of two officers of the Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and OPs. No alleged inspection dt. 02.02.2018 of the crop has been made in presence of answering OPs by Agriculture Department and the complainant; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.RA to Ex.RC and Mark-RA & Mark-RB and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased seed of wheat having Batch No.HD-3086 for a consideration of Rs.3360/- from the OP No.1 vide Bill No.45140 dt. 13.11.2017 Ex.C1.
7. The grievance of the complainant is that the said seed sold by the OP No.1 was of sub-standard and the germination of said seed was 55 to 60% only in 1.75 acres land. The case of complainant depends upon the inspection report Ex.C2, whereby, the committee constituted by Agriculture Department has reported in their report that they inspected the field of the complainant and found that germination wheat seed was 55 to 60% only in 1.75 acres land, whereas, in 1.25 acres land, the germination of wheat seed is alright. It is further reported that as per version of the complainant, the variety of seed in all three acres of land are the same. But in this report, stand taken by the Inspection Committee is self contradictory in itself, because, when the complainant used the same variety of seed in all three acres, then how it can be possible that in 1.75 acres land, the germination of wheat seed was 55 to 60%, whereas, in 1.25 acres land, the germination of wheat seed is alright. So, this report of inspection committee cannot be believed. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that a good crop is not only dependent upon a quality of the pesticide but also depends upon so many other factors like quality of seeds, quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer used by the farmer & weather conditions prevailing at the relevant time and in the present complaint, the complainant has failed to point out about the other factors. Furthermore, the complainant has also failed to file the application u/s 13 (1)(c) before this Forum for analysis the wheat seed, which is mandatory as per provisions of law.
8. Moreover, the OPs have placed on file Analysis Report dt. 30.10.2017 as Ex.RA regarding the same lot number of wheat seed i.e. HD-3086, which is purchased by the complainant vide bill Ex.C1. According to the said report, the wheat seed was found to be OK and confirms to the relevant specification. So, it is proved on the file that the wheat seed sold by the OPs to the complainant, was duly tested one vide test report Ex.RA (submitted by the OPs) and as per that report, the said wheat seed found OK. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs.
9. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and we hereby dismiss the same. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:25.3.2019.
(D.N. Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
Present: Sh. R.K. Gill, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Kabir Dhall, Advocate for the OPs.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:25.3.2019. Member. Member. President.
