Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/300/2021

Rajpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dhan Luxmi Trading Company - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                   Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                               

  Smt.Harisha Mehta and Dr.K.S.Nirania, Members

                                                        Complaint Case No.300 of  2021.                                                 

   Date of Instt.: 26.11.2021                                                                 Date of Decision: 06.05.2024.

Rajpal son of Dariya Singh resident of Gajuwala Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1.Dhan Laxmi Trading Company 207 New Anaj Mandi Uklana.

2.Bayer Agriculture 3^rd Floor Tower B,E3-CDE, Industrial Area Phase 1, Chandigarh 160002 through its Chairman/Director.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                 Complainant in person.                                                                     OP No.1 exparte VOD 30.03.2022.                                                      Sh.Pawan Bishnoi, Advocate for OP No.2.

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

1.                          The facts pertaining to this complaint are that the complainant was in owner and in cultivating possession of the land measuring 22 acres as mentioned in para No.2 of the complaint after taking it on lease from their respective owners;   that the complainant purchased 30 KG seeds of Paddy Shift Gold (10 bags of 3 KG each) from OP No.1 on 14.05.2021 for a sum of Rs.8200/-; that thereafter the complainant planted the same in his fields but after 25-26 days he noticed that there were two types of plants; that the complainant moved an application to Agriculture Department and on the basis of this the concerned officials visited the spot opined that the heights of the some plants were 3.5 to 4 feet and some were of 5 feet height and complainant would suffer 20-25 % loss; that it all happened due to selling of inferior quality and two types of seeds by the Op No.1. The complainant requested the Ops to make the loss good but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          On notice, only OP No.2 appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that there is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op as the seeds were of high quality seeds and it has never received any complaint from any farmer; that the complainant has failed to comply with the Section 38 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as he has failed to produce any lab test report; that in the report it is nowhere concluded that the mixed variety of seeds were germinated due to defective seeds allegedly purchased by the complainant; that the crop depends apart from the seeds, quality, upon agro climatic condition, time of sowing, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients and effective use of fertilizers besides proper germination of seeds; that there is no possibility of loss by using the said product in accordance with the prescribed process as the product is analysed before sending into the market for sale and in the test conducted on 26.03.2021 it had passed the strict quality test; that the complainant had purchased the said seed on 14.05.2021 and lodged his complaint with department on 20.9.2021 and the fields were inspected on 29.09.2021 and report was made on 04.10.2021 when the crop was almost ripe for harvesting for next few days; that the act of the complainant for not making any complaint immediately shows that the losses had not occurred to the complainant due to defective seed but for any other reasons; that the complainant has not disclosed the method of application of the alleged product; that the inspection was carried out after four and half months and during this period the crop might have been infected by any disease and suitable steps might not have been taken by the complainant to cure the same, therefore, question of any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not arise at all. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made. Op No.1 did not appear before this Commission, therefore, it was declared exprte vide order dated 30.03.2022.

3.                          The complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C5 whereas Op No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A with documents Annexure OP2/1 to OP2/10.

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

5.                          The complainant is mainly relied upon the inspection report Annexure C2 to prove his case being vital and crucial piece of evidence. In this very report, it is mentioned that the farmer/complainant had sown paddy crop in his land measuring 8.5 acres after purchasing the seeds from OP No.1. Further perusal of this report reveals that concerned authorities had opined that the complainant would suffer 20-25 % loss.  Undisputedly, the complainant had purchased 30 kgs of seeds (10 packets of 3 KG each) and the same were sown in 8.5 acres of land.  It is worthwhile to mention here that 8 KG seed was required for one acre and the complainant has sown less quantity as per the prescribed standard made by the Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University qua the paddy crop, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that this report is not helpful to his case as the complainant himself had sown the seeds which were actually sufficient for 3-4 acres. Moreover, in this report it has not been mentioned that the seeds, allegedly purchased by the complainant, were of sub-standard quality It is worthwhile to mention here that the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops as the poor quality of seeds/mixed seeds were sold to the complainant by Op lies on the complainant but in the present complaint the complainant has come with bare allegations only without leading any substantive evidence  and it is settled law that the complainant has to stand on his own legs to prove his case without taking any benefits from the weaknesses of the other party by leading concrete and authentic evidence.  Moreover, learned counsel for the Op No.2 has also produced on case file lab report Annexure OP2/6 wherein it has been mentioned that the purity of the seed was 99.6 % with germination percentage upto 89 %.  The batch number and the name of the seeds mentioned in this document is the same as is mentioned in bill Annexure C1, therefore, the present complaint deserves dismissal.

6.                          Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice, on part of the Op, so as to make it liable in this matter to any extent. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.  In the given circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of this Commission, for perusal of parties herein. Case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 06.05.2024

                                                                                               

      (K.S.Nirania)                     (Harisha Mehta)           (Rajbir Singh)                          

   Member                                  Member                            President