Haryana

StateCommission

A/502/2015

HARYANA SEED DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHARAMBIR - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI KANT

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      502 of 2015

Date of Institution:     04.06.2015

Date of Decision :      02.11.2015

 

1.      Managing Director, Haryana Beej Vikas Nigam Limited, Bays No.3-6, Sector 2, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

2.      Manager, Haryana Beej Vikas Nigam Limited, Dangra Road, Tohana, District Fatehabad.

 

3.      Sales Inspector, Sales Office, Haryana Beej Vikas Nigam Limited, Near Anaj Mandi, Mandi Bhuna, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

 

          Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Gulab Singh s/o Fateh Singh, r/o Village Jhandli Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                   Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

      

                                                                                           

Present:     Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for appellants.

                   Shri Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          This appeal has been filed by Managing Director, Haryana Beej Vikas Nigam Limited and others-opposite parties against the order dated April 29^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short ‘District Forum’).  The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…..Hence, the present complaint is partly allowed and the Ops are directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5,000/- per acre in lump sum on account of loss suffered by him as mentioned in report Ex.C-3 besides cost of seeds.  The compliance of this order be made within a period of one month failing which it will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization…..”

 

2.      Gulab Singh-complainant purchased wheat seeds DBW-17 from Sales Office, Haryana Beej Vikas Nigam Limited, Near Anaj Mandi, Mandi Bhuna on November 11^th, 2012 vide bill Exhibit C-2. The complainant sowed the seeds in three acres of land.  When the complainant noticed that there was no germination, he reported the matter to the Agriculture Department, Fatehabad for inspection of his fields. The committee constituted by the Agriculture Department in its report Annexure A-7 stated that there was no germination of seed.  The complainant suffered loss of his crop as the seed did not germinate.

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

4.      The opposite parties in their reply pleaded that the complainant did not follow the instructions while sowing the seed in his fields.  The report of the Agriculture Department was not binding upon them because at the time of inspection, no notice was ever given to them.  Only Breeder could tell the quality of the breed and the Agriculture Officers had no knowledge or education regarding accurate assessment of produce. 

5.      The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the Committee constituted by the Agriculture Department did not issue any notice to the appellants before inspection.  This contention is contrary to the complaint dated November 28^th, 2013 moved by the complainant to the Agriculture Department, Fatehabad and Endorsement of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Fatehabad on its back (Annexure A-6) which shows that the copy of complaint was forwarded to the Sr. Coordinator, KVK, Fatehabad, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Fatehabad, Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Fatehabad, Quality Control Inspector, Fatehabad and the appellants for inspection of the field of complainant and submission of report.  Thus if the appellants intentionally ignored the notice, they cannot take the plea of non issuance of notice to them before inspection of fields.  In view of this overwhelming evidence on record, the plea raised by learned counsel for the appellants is not tenable and is hereby repelled.

6.      The order under challenge requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.18,800/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 02.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

(UK)