BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                                    Consumer Complaint no. 504 of 2022                                                                        

                                                                     Date of Institution :        10.08.2022                                                                    

                                                                   Date of Decision   :        03.05.2024.

Surjeet Singh, aged 42 years son of Sh. Bhajan Singh, resident of Gali No. 14, Village Khaja Khera, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

            ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Chand Pesticides situated at Shop No.66, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, through its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar.

2. Green Hybrid Seeds, Uklana Mandi, Hisar. M.No. 9991934300, email : st Floor, Srwana Complex, Kasalpuri Colony Lane, Next to LV Prasad Hospital, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hydrabad- 500034, Cell No. 7995531111.

E-mail : ..…Opposite parties.      

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

BEFORE:  SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR……….. PRESIDENT                               

                   SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………….. MEMBER                                           

                     SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Baljit Singh Chandi, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Sanjay Bishnoi, Advocate for the opposite parties.

ORDER

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2.                In  brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist. On 25.06.2022 he visited to the shop of op no.1 for purchasing Jawar seed for his two acres of land and purchased the same from op no.1 for the amount of Rs.6000/- vide invoice No. CP/22-23/544. The op no.1 had given every type of assurances to the complainant regarding best quality of seed in question. That thereafter complainant had sown seed in his two acres of land but there was no result of seed and complainant immediately approached to op no.1. The op no.1 started to make false excuses and openly stated that he cannot do anything and also started to threaten the complainant. That in this way ops have supplied duplicate seed to the complainant due to which he has suffered financial loss of Rs. two lacs and has also suffered unnecessary harassment. It is further averred that complainant also got served a legal notice to op on 14.07.2022 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant never visited the shop of answering op with regard to any complaint in seed. The complainant never got examined the land in which seeds sown from Agriculture department Haryana. No such type of any report has been filed by complainant and he did not make any complaint to the agriculture department or any other agency. The complainant never informed the company or answering op about defect in their seeds. It is further submitted that no photographs of land showing defect in plants have been placed on file. The op no.1 sells the seeds of company which is approved by Government. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.                On being impleaded and on notice, op no.2 appeared and filed written statement on the similar lines as that of op no.1.

5.                Op no.3 on being impleaded and on notice also appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that answering op has no knowledge from where complainant has purchased the seeds. The complainant never got examined the land in which seeds sown from Agriculture department Haryana. It is also submitted that their company always sells the seeds which is approved by Government and having certificate of germination. The complainant has purchased the seeds from op no.1 and answering op supplied seeds in good condition to op no.1. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

6.                The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Amarjeet Singh son of Sh. Angrej Singh Ex. CW2/A and copies of documents i.e. invoice Annexure C1, legal notice Ex.C1 and postal receipt Ex.C2.

7.                On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Proprietor of op no.1 as Ex. RW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Hari Om authorized person Ex. RW2/A and laboratory test report Ex. RW1 and Ex. RW2.

8.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.

9.                Admittedly on 25.06.2022 the complainant had purchased Jawar Seed alongwith seed of S6-462 Red 3 Kg from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.6000/- as is evident from invoice Annexure C1. However, the complainant has not produced on record any record of land in which he had allegedly sown Jawar seeds purchased from op no.1. He has also not placed on file any report of agriculture department to prove any defect in the seed in question. Neither any application in this regard was ever moved by complainant to the agriculture department for inspection of his land nor his land has ever been inspected by any other agency to ascertain any defect in the seed in question supplied to the complainant. However, ops have placed on file laboratory test report of seeds in question from Seed Analyst Seed Testing Laboratory Karnal (Uchani) as Ex.RW1 and Ex.RW2 whereby purity of the seed in question has been found as 100%. Further more, good germination and good yield depends upon so many factors like quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of the fertilizer and pesticides and weather conditions and as such it cannot be said at all that the reason of loss of crop was only due to defective seed supplied by the ops. So, in absence of any report about inferior quality of seed in question, the complainant has failed to prove on record that ops have supplied misbranded and substandard quality of the seeds to him. The judgments of Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissio (Chandigarh) passed in case titled as Jasdev Singh Versus The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Ambala and another FA No. 208 of 1993 decided on 15.06.1993 and decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Banta Ram Versus Jai Bharat Beej Company & Anr. 2013 (2) CPJ 617 relied upon by learned counsel for ops are applicable in this case.

10.              In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced :                            Member     Member                  President,

Dated: 03.05.2024.                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                         Redressal Commission, Sirsa.