Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/90/2009

Vishnu Kant Jha. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistance Controller, Rajendra Krishi Univeristy, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Ranjeet Kumar

12 Dec 2015

ORDER

 

                    District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur

        Complain Case No. – 90/2009

  Vishnu Kant Jha, S/o Late-Harigovind Jha aged-67 years,  R/o Vill- Berua Dih, Post-Bariyarpur, P.S- Sakara, District- Muzaffarpur. Present Address- Purani Bajar, Shukla Road, Satynarayan Mandir Lan Muzaffarpur-842001………………………………………………………………...Complainant

V/S

    

     

Assistance Controller, Rajendra Krishi Univeristy, Bihar Pusa, Seed, Processing  Plant T.C.A , Dholi-843121……………………. Opposite Parties.

Date of order- 12-12-2015

                                                                                                  Present.

  1. Shri Govind Prasad Singh

                                                                                                                         President,

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

  1.  Smt. Archana Singh

                     Member

        Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

 

for complainant  Sri Ranjeet Kumar – representative   

for Opposite Party- Sri  Tarkeshwar  Sati Pd. And Akhileshwar Kumar- Advocate

Order

 

                     The complainant has filed his case  of claim for Rs.94,440 on 06-08-2009 arises from unprocessed  seed of Til purchase from the opposite party for cultivation in his land invested  Rs. 11,240/- and damaged of crop Rs. 83,200/-

                        The case of complainant appears from his complaint petition supported with an affidavit alleged there in that he has purchased 8 Kg. of til seed on 27-01-2009 for Rs. 600/- for cultivation in his 4 Bigha  of land from the opposite party, accordingly he prepared his filed and cultivated the seed but  the seed was not germinated, only 1 or 2 % seed was germinated as such he inform the opposite party on 01-03-2009 and requested to get examine germination  of his seed but the opposite party had not taken care he waited him and seed became destroyed, the opposite party had not given any direction to him as such he suffered loss of Rs. 94440/- including Rs. 11,240/- for cultivation and Rs. 83,200/- for average production and accordingly he has filed his case with aforesaid claim.

            The complainant has filed Xerox copy of Cash memo for purpose of  til B/S 8 Kg. for Rs. 600/- on 27-01-2008. Gate pass receipt dated 27-01-2009 lebel and letter dated 18-03-2009 send by him for enquiry  by the opposite party.

            He has also filed rejoinder dated 30-07-2010 against the written statement dated 08-04-2010 filed by the opposite party.

            In this case opposite party appeared and has filed  his written statement on 08-04-2010 supported with an affidavit alleged therein that the case is not maintainable and he has no valid cause to  file this case and is not entitle for any relief from the opposite party. He has admitted the purchase  of til seed and at the time of purchase the opposite party has directed him that the said seed should be cultivated from 25 February  to 10 March  which is mentioned in University publicated  diary  but the complainant  has cultivated before date that is 29-01-2009 as such seed was not germinated. He has also admitted the information given by the complainant dated 18-03-2009 the opposite party has further alleged that before time of prescribed germination if the seed was not germinated it is not upon the opposite party. He is not liable  for any discrepancy. The opposite party has further alleged that the complainant has informed him on 18-03-2009 and requested for examination within 10 days which come up to 28-03-2009 but as per allegations of complainant he has again the plough his field within  15 and 20 days which was from 01-03-2009 as such it appears that within  15-03-2009 to 20-03-2009 he get ploughed his land  and after 2 to 3 days of his plough of filed he cultivated and another crop in the said field as such there is no any scope for inspection of germination of seed. The seed was properly processed under watch of scientific officers. Further the opposite party has alleged that the complainant has given the price of produced crop @ of 8000 but as  per the market rate there is rate to til is  Rs. 2000/- to 3000/-  per quintal as such the case is total concocted  and not maintainable against the opposite party and prayed to dismiss the case.

            After going through the rejoinder of written statement the complainant has mentioned that due to typing mistake date has been motioned in his complaint petition as 01-03-2009 at the place of 18-03-2009.

            Considering the facts, circumstances, material available with the record as well as allegations of the respective parties admittedly the complainant has cultivated his til crop on 29-01-2009 which is against the prescribed time of cultivation published by the opposite party, that the time of cultivation of seed of til is from 25 February  to 10 March, as such admittedly the complainant has cultivated the said seed about 1 month prior from the prescribed cultivation time as such the complainant is admittedly at fault.  Regarding the information given by the complainant for non germination of seed that he has informed on 18-03-2009. It has no meaning to give any explanation regarding the date of mentioning in his complaint petition of information mistakenly typed as 01-03-2009 it has no meaning for adjudication when the complainant is found at fault that he has cultivated his crop one month prior to the prescribed time, he cannot get any relief. Because  he has not given any explanation  that how and what circumstances he was incompetence  to crop the said seed. It is on him, as such after careful consideration and scrutiny we are of the opinion that the complainant is at fault and is not entitle to for any relief and  his case is not maintainable.

            Accordingly the case and the same is dismissed with cost.

             

               Member                                                                   President

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.