Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/732/2016

Daaga Agro & Chemical Corporation through Pro. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bal chand Chaudhary S/O Mangiram Choudhary - Opp.Party(s)

D.M. Mathur

24 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 746/2016

 

Chetak Seeds through Managing Partner r/o H.No. 1255, Sector 14 Hisar, Haryana

Vs.

Balchand Chaudhary s/o Mangiram Choudhary r/o 22, Arjum Nagar South, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:732/2016

 

Daga Agro & Chemical Corporation through Prop. Behind RSRTC Office, Tabela, Near Hathkargha Bhawan, C-Scheme, Chomu House, Jaipur.

Vs.

Balchand Chaudhary s/o Mangiram Choudhary r/o 22, Arjum Nagar South, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur

 

Date of Order 24.3.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

2

 

Mr. Pratap Singh Arya counsel for Chetak Seeds

Mr.D.M.Mathur counsel for Daga Agro & Chemical Corporation

Mr. Surendra Singh counsel for complainant Balchand Chaudhary

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals have been preferred against common order. Hence , are decided by this single order.

 

The contention of the appellant Chetak Seeds is that as per Ex. 9 & 10 Raj Seeds were sold to the consumer. Hence, they are not in any way responsible for the deficiency as their seed produce have not been used by the complainant and further more as per the contention of the complainant the expired seeds were purchased by him hence, the appellant Chetak Seeds is not responsible.

 

The contention of Daga Agro & Chemical Corporation is that they have sold the chetak seeds as per bill Ex. 14 & 15 and the seeds were of good quality. There is no evidence to show

3

 

that the germination was poor due to the defect in seeds. No expert report has been submitted. Hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

The contention of the complainant is that he has purchased chetak seeds from Daga Agro & Chemical Corporation which has not been germinated properly hence, the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

The contention of the complainant is that he purchased the seeds from Daga Agro & Chemical Corporation and his further contention is that he has purchased chetak seeds and same has been mentioned in Ex. 14 & 15 but the seeds which have been put in the field are of Raj seeds which is evident from Ex. 9 & 10 photo copy of bags containing the seeds and when chetak seeds have not been grown in the field the appellant Chetak Seeds could not be held liable and there is no evidence to the effect that the complainant has grow chetak seeds in the field. Further more the complainant himself has set up a case that seeds were of 2006 and were expired. Be that

4

 

may be the case the appellant Chetak Seeds cannot be held responsible when complainant has purchased the expired seeds. Hence, no deficiency could be proved against the appellant Chetak Seeds.

 

The contention of the consumer is that expired seeds were sold to him but no certification as per Rule 14 of the Seeds Rules, 1968 has been submitted which could prove that expired seeds were sold to the consumer and except oral evidence nothing has been brought on record which could show that the germination was poor and counsel for the appellants have rightly submitted that germination depends on number of reasons for example quality of soil, climate maintenance etc. The appellant has relied upon I (2013) CPJ 617 (NC) Bantaram Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company where the petitioner has not got the seed tested from any laboratory as required under provisions of section 13 (1) (c) of the Act, 1986 and the court has held that inferior quality of seeds is not proved which is the case here.

 

Further reliance has been placed on II (2012) CPJ 373 (NC) Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs. Sharad Moritao Kankale where no report of any agricultural expert was produced to prove that

5

quality of seeds were poor which is the case here. Further reliance has been placed on II (2012) CPJ 436 (NC) Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech. (India) Ltd. Vs. Doddabasappa & ors. Further reliance has been placed on IV (2013) CPJ 186 (NC) Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar where no scientific evidence is produced to establish the poor quality of seeds. Further reliance has been placed on III (2011) CPJ 433 (NC) Gujarat State Coop.Mktg, Federation Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyambhai where it has been held that germination depends on factors like type of irrigation , fertility of soil etc. and in absence of credible evidence claim has been dismissed which is also the case here.

 

Hence, in view of the fact that no expert or scientific report has been submitted that the germination was poor, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

The appellant Daga Agro & Chemical Corporation has also placed reliance on II (2012) CPJ 297 (NC) Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. G.Sreenivasa Reddy, I (2015) CPJ 530 (NC) Indian Farmers Fertilizers Coop. Ltd. Vs. Ramswaroop, I (2014) CPJ 538 Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Vs. Garapati Sriniwas & anr. III ( 2015) CPJ 181 (NC) Haryana Agro Industries Vs. Narinder Singh and II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC)

6

 

Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Vs. Sadhu & anr. where report of specialist were not in favour of the complainant which is not the case here.

 

Further reliance has been placed on III (2015) CPJ 145 (NC) Devender Pal Singh Vs. Chief Agriculture Officer, Hardwar where on inspection of field no short comings was found which is not the case here as no inspection has been done by any of the authority and no such report has been submitted. Further reliance has been placed on III (2014) CPJ 33 (NC) NU Genes Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ishwar & anr. where nursery plants and paddy seeds were mixed and which is not the case here. Hence, unnecessary these citations have been submitted.

 

Hence, in view of the above the order of the Forum below is not sustainable. Both the appeals are allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 16.5.2016 is set aside.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm