Haryana

StateCommission

A/385/2015

PARBHAT SEED TRADERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALWAN AND ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN CHAUHAN

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      385 of 2015

Date of Institution:      28.04.2015

Date of Decision :       30.11.2015

 

Parbhat Seeds Trader, near Power House, Village Amin, District Kurukshetra, Haryana through its proprietor Hans Raj Kalra.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Balwan s/o Sh. Chander Singh, Resident of Village Bhatgaon Dungran, Tehsil and District Sonipat.  

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Laxmi Beej Bhandar, near Police Station Sadar, Gohana Road, Sonipat.  

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                         

Argued by:           Shri Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant.

(Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with)

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing this appeal, Parbhat Seeds Trader-Opposite Party No.1 questioned the correctness and legality of order dated February 9^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.394 of 2013.  Vide impugned order, the District Forum held the appellant deficient in service for selling defective paddy seed to Balwan-complainant/respondent No.1.

2.      The complainant purchased 50 Kgs. Paddy seed of PB-1121 variety on May 21^st, 2013 from Laxmi Beej Bhandar-Opposite Party No.2, the authorized dealer of appellant-opposite party No.1, vide receipt dated May 21^st, 2013 (Exhibit C-1) by paying Rs.3250/-. He sowed the seed in his 33 Kanals 16 Marlas of land. When the crop was at vegetative stage, it was found that the seed supplied to him was defective and was mixed with some other variety. The complainant suffered loss of his crop as the seed was not pure. He approached the opposite parties to compensate him on account of loss of his crop. The opposite parties did not pay heed to his complaint on the ground that the seed supplied was tested and approved by the Seed Certification Agency.

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

4.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing their respective replies denying the averments made by the complainant.

5.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite appellant/opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.38,500/- per acre to the complainant.   

6.      The best piece of evidence to prove that seed was defective is the report Annexure-1 prepared by a team of agriculture experts consisting of Block Agriculture Officer, Subject Matter Specialist and Assistant Plants Protection Officer, Sonipat. In the report, it was stated that growth of plants varied in the fields. 45% plants were bearing panicles (Baliya) and 55% plants were of small size without panicles (Baliya). The opposite parties did not lead any evidence in rebuttal to the report Annexure-1 and therefore the same cannot be discarded. So, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is repelled.

7.      It is cardinal principle of law that ordinarily the burden of proving the fact rests on the party who asserts the affirmative issue and not on the party who denies the same. However, there is distinction between the phrase burden of proof and onus of proof. Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India while clearing the said distinction in A. Raghavamma & Anr. Vs. A. Chenchamma & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 136 held that there is essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof. Burden of proof lies on the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence.

8.      By placing on record the report of agriculture experts Annexure/1, the complainant has discharged the initial onus to prove that the seeds in question were substandard and defective. So, it was for the appellant/opposite parties to produce the seeds of same batch number and variety before the District Forum with a request to send the same to the seed testing laboratory but they failed. Therefore, the report submitted by the agriculture experts cannot be discarded.

9.      In view of the above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

10.    The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 30.11.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL