Aasha Nand Shiv Kumar V/S Ved Parkash S/o Suraj Bhan - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

537/2012

Ved Parkash S/o Suraj Bhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aasha Nand Shiv Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Kuldeep Singh

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

Complaint No.537 of 2012

Date of instt.: 9.11.2012

Date of decision: 10.3.2016

Ved Parkash son of Shri Suraj Bhan resident of village Padha tehsil Assandh district Karnal.

. ……..Complainant.

Vs.

1.M/s Asa Nand Shiv Kumar, 10-11, New Subzi Mandi, Karnal.

2. M/s Best Food Private Limited, Indri district Karnal.

……… Opposite Parties.

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

Protection Act.

Before Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:- Sh.Kuldeep Singh Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Virender Sachdeva Advocate for the Opposite party no.1.

Sh.B.P.Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2.

ORDER:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the averments that he purchased eight packets of paddy seed P-1121 from Opposite Party No. 1 for Rs.4400/-, vide cash memo No.2509 dated 10.5.2012. Each packet contained 10 Kgms of seed. From those eight packets of seed, nursery was prepared which could be planted in five acres only, whereas the Opposite Party No.1 had assured that one packet would be sufficient for preparing nursery for one acre of land. He complained to the Opposite Party no.1, but he avoided the same on one pretext or the other. It has further been alleged that when crop of paddy ripened, he was surprised to see that paddy yield was only 10/11 quintals per acre, whereas the average yield per acre remained 20-22 quintals. Thereafter, he got his crop checked from the concerned officers, who submitted report that there was 20% off variety of seed, due to which yield was on the lower side. Then he complained to the Opposite Party no.1 and showed him the report, but the Opposite Party no.1 explained helplessness saying that the seed was packed by Opposite Party no.2, therefore, only Opposite Party no.2 could give compensation. Thus, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,27,000/- due to mixed variety of seed supplied by the Opposite Parties which caused him mental harassment apart from financial loss.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party no.1 filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant did not get the sample of the seed tested for compliance of provisions of Section 13(i)(c) of the Act; that the report of the agricultural department was prepared falsely in order to help the complainant and without giving any notice to the Opposite Parties; that complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties and that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which can not be decided by this Forum in summary manner

On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased eight packets of paddy seed from the Opposite Party no.1.It has been submitted that the complainant has not produced any proof regarding use of eight packets of the seed. He used five packets of seed for eight acres of land, due to which he got fewer yield. There was no fault of the quality of seed. The complainant failed to adopt the procedure as prescribed by the agriculture department. The complainant cannot be allowed to get benefit of his own wrongs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3. The Opposite Party no.2 filed separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant is not consumer; that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the parties; that the complaint is hopelessly time barred; that the complainant has raised intricate and complicated questions of law and facts, which can only be decided by the Civil court and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

On merits, it has been pleaded that there was no defect in quality of the seed. The Opposite Party no.2 had sold away 1500 quintals of seed of the same quality to various dealers but there was no such complaint from any other farmer. The complainant never made any complaint to the Opposite Party no.2 regarding the defect in the quality of the seed and he even did not comply with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. It has further been averred that report of the concerned officer, if any, has been procured by the complainant in collusion with such officers of the agriculture department and no notice regarding alleged inspection was ever given to the Opposite Parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

4. In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 have been tendered.

5. On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties, affidavit of Kewal Krishan Ex.OP1, affidavit of Sh.Rakesh Chaudhary Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.OP1/A and Ex.OP2/B to Ex.OP2/E have been tendered.

6. We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

7. The complainant had purchased eight bags of paddy seed P-1121 from the Opposite Party No.1.for five acres of his land. Neither there is any allegation nor evidence that there was any defect in the germination of the seed. The complainant alleged that yield of paddy crop was 11-12 quintals per acre, whereas average yield in the area was 20/22 quintals per acre. The complainant has produced copy of report Ex.C2, prepared by the Committee of the officers constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, according to which fields of the complainant were inspected and it was found that there was 20% off variety in the crop. In the said report, it has not been mentioned that the complainant had suffered loss on account of off variety of the seeds

8. The para no.7 and 8 of the complaint falsify the report of the committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal. In para no.7 of the complaint, it has been submitted that on ripening of the crop, the complainant was surprised to see that the yield was only 10/12 quintals per acre, whereas the average yield in the adjoining land was 20/22 quintals per acre. Thus, it is clear from the pleadings of the para no.7 of the complaint that the complainant had harvested the crop and as per his allegations, the yield was on the lower side. In para no.8 of the complaint, it has been pleaded that he got his crop checked from concerned officers, who after checking submitted report that in the seed 20% was of off variety due to which there was less yield. A conjoint reading of paras no.7 and 8 makes it emphatically clear that as per pleadings of the complainant, the crop was harvested and when he found that yield was on the lower side, he got his fields checked from the concerned officers who submitted report. After harvesting of the crop, how, the committee of the officers agriculture department could give opinion that there was 20% off variety of the crop in the field of the complainant. No notice by the team of the agriculture department was ever given to the Opposite Parties before inspection of the field of the complainant. Therefore, under such circumstances, no importance can be attached to the report of the said team.

9. In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we arrive at the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove that seed purchased by him from the Opposite Parties was of inferior quality or of mixed verity. Consequently, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:10.03.2016.

(K.C.Sharma)

President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )

Member.