| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 304 of 12-11-2018 Decided on : 20-12-2021 Sukhdev Singh aged about 48 years S/o Sh. Jarnail Singh R/o Village Pathrala, District Bathinda 151 401. …...Complainant Versus Zimidara Pesticides, Shop No. 128, New Grain Market, Mandi Dabwali, Distt Sirsa 125104 through its Manager/Prop/Authorised Signatory Bayer India, Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandant Estate, Thane (West) 400607 through its Manager/MD/Director/Incharge
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Present : For the complainant : Sh. Sahil Bansal, Advocate For the opposite parties : Sh. Sukhmander Singh, Advocate O R D E R Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Sukhdev Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Zimidara Pesticides & another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he took 21 kanal agriculture land on theka from Jagroop Singh, Surjit Singh and Ranjit Singh against the amount of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. The opposite party No. 2 is manufacture cum importer of the seeds SP-7172450+ 120 and opposite party No.1 is the dealer/distributor of opposite party No.2 and sells the seeds. On the assurance of the opposite parties that the seeds are of best quality, complainant purchased seeds from opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No. 2, first time 5 packets of seeds SP-7172450+ 120 and second time 3 packets of seeds SP-7172450+ 120 vide Invoice No. GST-455 dated 03-05-2018 for cultivation. It is alleged that complainant is illiterate villager and poor farmer. He does not know the technicalities and as such, first bill of 5 packets already destroyed at the time of washing clothes and the second bill is in the custody of complainant. After sowing the seeds, the complainant took proper care of the crops with Super Fast fet compost, urea compost, 4 times supply of water for irrigation and also used spray to prevent the damage to crop, for which complainant spent about 15,000/- per acre but the cotton crop did not grow and developed. The complainant lodged complaint with opposite parties No.1 & 2. They visited the spot and found that the Narma crop was not developed. Thereafter, complainant filed application dated 15-10-2018 with Agriculture Department Bathinda. for inspecting the fields and assessing the loss. The Agriculture Development officer, Pathrala Block, Sangat District Bathinda gave his report regarding the loss suffered by complainant. The said Agriculture Officer ignored the crop of Narma in the adjoining fields which were also in the same condition and is about 40 Maund i.e. approx. 15 Qntl per acre. The present rate of Narma/cotton crop is Rs, 5200/- Qntl. In this way, loss suffered by complainant is Rs, 2,34,000/- on account of loss of Narma and Rs, 15000/- per acre on account of urea and pesticides etc., and Rs. 5920/- (Rs, 740/- per packet x8), totaling to Rs, 2,84,920/-. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties are completely responsible for the loss suffered by complainant for selling the low and duplicate quality of seeds due to which complainant suffered great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, hard work and also financial loss for which complainant claims compensation to the tune of Rs. Rs,1,00,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs, 2,84,920/- on account of loss suffered by complainant, as detailed above, in addition to Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation besides Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No. 1 has submitted that the complainant allegedly purchased the hybrid seed manufactured by opposite party No. 2 from opposite party No. 1 i.e. Zamidara Pesticides situated in Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, State Haryana, payment was also made against the said seed in Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, Invoice was also issued in Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, therefore, no cause of action ever arose to complainant in District Bhatinda, Hence, District Forum Bhatinda has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 has taken preliminary objections that there is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 because opposite party No. 1 is the dealer of various Pesticides, Insecticides, Herbicides & seeds of various qualities manufactured by different companies and has a valid license to store and sale the same. The opposite party No. 1 receives the said material in sealed conditions and further sells the same in the same condition to the farmers. It has been pleaded that neither the agriculture department nor the complainant himself issued any notice to the opposite parties before inspecting the field of the complainant or before submitting the report regarding the losses suffered by the complainant, if any on account of any alleged defect in the cotton seed used by complainant for his crop Crop. The procedure prescribed U/s 13(1)(C) of the 'Act' which is mandatory has not been followed by Agriculture Department without that it could not be possibly opined that the seed purchased by the complainant was defective and that the loss if any suffered by him on account of the seed purchased by him. Even the complainant did not file any application before this Commission to send the sample of the seed to the approved lab for testing. Therefore, it is quite evident that attempt is being made by complainant to mislead and misguide this Commission. Even oppoite party No. 1 was having no opportunity to apply before this Commission for sending the sample to an approved lab for testing because no notice was issued and served to the opposite parties during the shelf life of the material. Further preliminary objections are that no complaint/intimation was even sent by complainant either to opposite party No. 1 or to opposite party No. 2 about the quality of the seed and its adverse effects on the germination of the seed before filing the present complaint. Hence, the opposite party No. 1 had no opportunity to visit the site and access the alleged loss if any suffered by the complainant on account of quality of the seed and that from perusal of the report of Agriculture Officer, it is nowhere concluded that the less germination of the seed was on account of the defective seed, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the opposite parties. It has been pleaded that that a good crop is not only dependent upon the quality of the seed but also depends upon so many other factors like quality of land, quality of water source of irrigation, quality of the, fertilizer, quality of pesticides used by the farmer & weather conditions prevailing at the relevant time. Since, the complainant has failed to point out about the other factors; therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. In the very bill/Invoice vide which the seed was purchased by complainant, the instructions have been printed on the back side of the bill/invoice and it is not clear whether the complainant has followed those instructions and the seed was sown as per the said instructions. It is also mentioned in the said instructions that 'Good quality of seed and insecticides are sold here. Seller has no control over their use. The seller is not responsible for its bad effects. It has also been pleaded that the seeds are always manufactured by opposite party by batch process and each batch contains Quintals of seeds. Numerous other farmers in the country had also purchased same seeds of same batch and the farmers are satisfied using the same. The opposite party No. 1 is engaged in this trade since last so many years and its products are popular amongst the farmers due to their high quality. The products manufactured by opposite party No. 1 are thoroughly analysed by the technically expert and highly qualified specialist in its laboratory, which is equipped with the modern equipment and machineries. These products are allowed for the sale only after they pass the strict quality control analysis procedure and found according to the specifications. The said laboratory of opposite party is a member of International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) and is involved in proficiency test by ISTA for various quality control parameters. Therefore, there is no possibility of any loss by using the said product in accordance with the prescribed process. This seed was also tested by opposite party No. 2 during the pendency of this complaint on 5-12-2018 where the Genetic Purity was found 99.90% Cry1A was found 100%. Cry2Ab was found 97.2%., hence there were no chances that it could have badly affected the germination of the seed. It has also been pleaded that complainant did not disclose true and correct facts and was guilty of suppressing material particulars from this Commission which should have been disclosed for the just and proper decision of the case. The complaint is completely silent about the method of application of alleged product. When and in what manner they were used, what was the disease in the complainant's crop etc., Missing of this vital information establishes that the alleged product, if proven to be used was not used in accordance with the method recommended. The climate and weather conditions at the time of application of any product plays vital role for getting the desired results but in the instant matter, the complainant has deliberately concealed this material fact. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 has reiterated its version as given in preliminary objections, detailed above. The opposite party No. 2 put in appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No. 2 raised preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has created a false story in his complaint to mislead this Commission by concocting and distorting facts and circumstances of the present case ; that neither the agriculture department nor the complainant himself issued any notice to the opposite parties before inspecting the fields or before submitting the report regarding losses suffered by the complainant, if any on account of any alleged defect in the cotton seeds allegedly used by the complainant for his crop; that the opposite party was having no opportunity to apply before this Commission for sending the sample to an approved lab for its testing because no notice was issued and served to the opposite party during the shelf life of the material; that no complaint/intimation was ever sent by complainant to either opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 about the quality of the seeds and its adverse effect on the germination of seed before filing the present complaint; that the complainant was aware of the fact that consumer complainant could have only been filed before District Commission Sirsa and that no liability can be fastened upon the opposite parties regarding the loss suffered by the complainant, if any, on account of less germination. It has been pleaded that that a good crop is not only dependent upon the quality of the seeds but also depends upon so many other factors like quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer, quality of pesticides used by the farmer and water conditions prevailing at the relevant time. In the very bill/Invoice vide which the seed was purchased by complainant, the instructions have been printed on the back side of the bill/invoice and it is not clear whether the complainant has followed those instructions and the seed was sown as per the said instructions. It is also mentioned in the said instructions that 'Good quality of seed and insecticides are sold here. Seller has no control over their use. The seller is not responsible for its bad effects. It is also pleaded that the seeds are always manufactured by opposite party No. 2 by batch process and each batch contains Quintals of seeds. Numerous other farmers in the country had also purchased same seeds of same batch and the farmers are satisfied using the same. The opposite party No. 2 is engaged in this trade since last so many years and its products are popular amongst the farmers due to their high quality. The products manufactured by opposite party No. 2 are thoroughly analysed by the technically expert and highly qualified specialist in its laboratory, which is equipped with the modern equipment and machineries. These products are allowed for the sale only after they pass the strict quality control analysis procedure and found according to the specifications. The said laboratory of opposite party No. 2 is a member of International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) and is involved in proficiency test by ISTA for various quality control parameters. Therefore, there is no possibility of any loss by using the said product in accordance with the prescribed process. It is further pleaded that this seed was also tested by opposite party No. 2 during the pendency of this complaint on 5-12-2018 where the Genetic Purity was found 99.90% Cry1A was found 100%. Cry2Ab was found 97.2%., hence there were no chances that it could have badly affected the germination of the seed. It has also been pleaded that complainant did not disclose true and correct facts and was guilty of suppressing material particulars from this Commission which should have been disclosed for the just and proper decision of the case. The complaint is completely silent about the method of application of alleged product. When and in what manner they were used, what was the disease in the complainant's crop etc., Missing of this vital information establishes that the alleged product, if proven to be used was not used in accordance with the method recommended. The climate and weather conditions at the time of application of any product plays vital role for getting the desired results but in the instant matter, the complainant has deliberately concealed this material fact. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 admitted that the seed was purchased by complainant against the payment of Rs 8880/- was of good quality, but pleaded that Bayer India Limited is not the manufacturer of the seed in question rather the manufacturer is Bayer Bio Science Pvt Ltd. It is denied that the first bill of 5 packets was destroyed by the complainant. It has been pleaded that since the original bills of Super Fast fet compost, urea compost allegedly used by the complainant have not been placed on record by him, therefore, it cannot be said that those were actually used. The complainant has not stated in the complaint as to what are the sources of irrigation and what are the sprays used by him to prevent crop from damages. It has been pleaded that in the report given by the Agriculture Department, it is no where stated that the loss if any suffered by the complainant was on account of defective seed. Moreover the remarks of the agriculture Department us that from the date of sowing the seed till the inspection of the fields, the complainant never contacted any officials or officer of the Agriculture Department or any officer of Sangat Block, clearly indicate that a false and fabricated story have been concocted by the complainant. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukhdev Singh dated 12-11-2018 (Ex.C-1), photo copy of agreement (Ex.C-2), photocopy of Jamabandi (Ex.C-3), photocopy of Invoice (Ex.C-4), photocopy of letter dated 15-10-2018 (Ex.C-5), photocopy of report (Ex.C-6). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar dated 15-01-2019 (Ex.OP1/1), photocopy of authority (Ex.OP2/1), photocopy of letter (Ex.OP2/2,) photo copy of bill containing 2 pages (Ex.OP1/3), Photocopy of lab report (Ex.OP2/4), photocopy of label of box (Ex.OP2/5),. Affidavit of Dr. DS Shekhawat dated 15-01-2019 (Ex.OP2/6). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is well settled that when the averments of the complainant are denied by the opposite parties, complainant is legally duty bound to prove his case by affirmative evidence. The complainant is also required to prove his case as pleaded in the complaint. The admitted facts are that the complainant purchased 3 packets of seeds SP 7172 450+120 vide Invoice No. GST 455 dated 3-5-2018 (Ex. C-4) from opposite party No. 1. However, the complainant has alleged in his complaint that he firstly purchased 5 packets of above said seed, but no evidence to that effect has been placed on record. The controversy is whether the seed sold by opposite party No. 1, manufactured by opposite party No. 2 were of inferior quality. The onus to prove this fact was upon the complainant. No expert evidence has been brought on record by the complainant to prove his version. The only evidence to prove the case of the complainant is Inspection report Ex. C-6 of Agriculture Officer. The relevant portion of this report (Ex. C-6) reveals that Agriculture Officer has opined that there is a distance in plants and sufficient quantity of weed grass is also grown in the fields. There were average 15 to 20 big cotton bolls per plant out of which 10 to 15 were riped/opened and average 5% bolls/flowers were unriped/unopened. The agriculture Officer has specificially mentioned that from the date of sowing the seed till the date of inspection, the complainant has never contacted either to him nor any other official of Sangat Block of Agriculture Department. He has further opined that after inspecting the spot, he has come to the conclusion that there is possibility of yield of about 8-10 maund per acre. The Agriculture Officer in his aforesaid report has opined that till the date of inspection i.,e. 23-10-2018, complainant has neither contacted with the Agriculture Officer nor with any other official of Sangat Block. Therefore, it is proved on file that complainant was not having any complaint regarding germination of seeds due to which reason he never contacted Agricultural Department and made any complaint in this regard. If poor/inferior quality seeds were sold to complainant, there should be germination problem and complainant should have made hue and cry in this regard at that time. The Agriculture Officer in his above said report has also opined that only average 5% bolls/flowers are unopened. This report does not relveal that the seeds were defective. There is also nothing that the seed sown were not germinated. The complainant has not brought on file any evidence that he ever tried to contact the opposite parties and complained about seed. The complainant did not inform the opposite parties to accompany them at the time of inspection of Agriculture Officer. In such circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that seed sold to him by opposite party No. 1 were of inferior/poor quality whereas the opposite party No. 2 i.e. manufacturer of seed in question has pleaded in written reply that Numerous other farmers in the country had also purchased same seeds of same batch and the farmers are satisfied using the same and the products manufactured by opposite party No. 2 are thoroughly analysed by the technically expert and highly qualified specialist in its laboratory, which is equipped with the modern equipment and machineries and further these products are allowed for the sale only after they pass the strict quality control analysis procedure and found according to the specifications. The complainant has not placed any document on file to prove that same seed was used/sown by any other farmer and he also suffered loss as alleged by complainant or otherwise that cotton crop/seed of same quality sown by other farmers were having more yield. The complainant has not placed on file any document to show that how much seed was sown per acre and how much average yield of this crop should be. Even complainant has not mentioned in his complaint that how much seed per acre was sown by him. The complainant has mentioned in his application (Ex. C-5) filed to Chief Agriculture Officer, that he purchased seed for 8 acres. As per report of Agriculture Officer (Ex. C-6), land/crop inspected was 2 Acres for assessing the loss, if any. There is no complaint of complainant qua other 6 acres crop. The complainant has not got inspected crop of other 6 acres even for comparative study. Therefore keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is no cogent and convincing evidence of the complainant to show that loss, if any, to the crop was certainly on account of seed supplied by opposite parties. Moreover, there could be some other factors due to which there may not be proper growth of the cotton crop such as quality of soil, quality of water for irrigation, moisture, less or excess watering conditions, quality of land, wrong time of sowing the crop, weather conditions etc., The complainant has not even placed on file bills for fertilizers and pesticides etc., Mere allegations cannot take shape of proof unless and untill supported by cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the opposite parties for the loss of crop, if any, suffered by complainant. As a result of above discussion, we are of the view that complainant has failed to establish deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly, complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 20-12-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
