Haryana

Jind

38/14

Raj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Seeds Dev. Cropn. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Jagdish Redhu

02 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 38 of 2014

   Date of Institution: 15.4.2014

   Date of final order: 2.2.2015

Raj Singh s/o Sh. Molu Ram r/o village Sinhpura, Tehsil and District Jind.  

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. The Managing Director, Haryana Seeds Dev. Corpn. Ltd.( A State Govt. Undertaking), Bays 3-6, Sector-2, Panchkula through its Managing Director.
2. Haryana Seeds Dev. Corpn. Ltd. ( A State Govt. Undertaking), Bays 3-6, Sector-2, Panchkula through its Sales Managaeer at Govt. Sale Centre at Safidon, District Jind.

                                                         …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member

                              

Present: Sh. Jagdish Redhu Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. Ram Pal Singh Adv. for opposite parties.

            

ORDER:

            The brief facts in the complaint are that  the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and  had purchased one quintal 20 Kilogram Wheat DBW-1743 seeds for a sum of Rs.2520 vide bill No.434357 from opposite party No.2. At the time of purchase of  wheat seeds, the opposite party No.2 gave assurance that seeds is approved and standard quality. The complainant sown his 2 acres of  wheat seed and found slow process of the wheat crop and also seen the

                        Raj Singh Vs. M.D. Haryana seeds etc.

                                      …2…

mixed plant of wheat crop. After this, the complainant  moved an application before the Director Agricultural, District Jind for inspection of his field. The field of the complainant was inspected by the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Safidon  and gave his report  on dated 27.1.2013 that 35% and 25% loss in the wheat crop shown by the complainant.  Due to supply of sub-standard mix-branded wheat seeds he has suffered a huge loss.  The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.2 and requested to compensate him but the  opposite party No.2 did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  as compensation  on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

  2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have  put in appearance and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is contended that the complainant has not mentioned the rectangle number and killa numbers in which he has sown the above said seeds. The complainant has not followed the proper procedure before sowing the wheat seeds according to the instructions and directions of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have sold the certified seed to the complainant  which was duly certified by the ‘Haryana State Seed Certification Agency’. So

                        Raj Singh Vs. M.D. Haryana seeds etc.

                                      …3…

question of substandard and misbranded of seed does not arise.  The field of the complainant was inspected in the absence of opposite parties. The wheat seeds sold to the complainant were of good quality and the same seed were sold to the other various farmers but there is nothing on record any complaint of other farmers  about mixing of other variety  wheat seeds. All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of  opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with costs of Rs.25,000/- is prayed for.

3.     In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of application dated 20.1.2014 Ex. C-2, copies of document Ex. C-3 to C-5,  copy of retail invoice Ex. C-6, copy of inspection report Ex. C-7 and  copy of jamabndi for the year 2009-10 Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the  affidavit of Sh.  Prem Singh, Manager Ex. OP-1, authority letter Ex. OP-2 and OP-3, copy of retail invoice Ex. OP-4, copy of gate pass slip Ex. OP-5 and OP-7, copy of material transfer note Ex. OP-6 and OP-8.  Copy of certificate Ex. OP-9 and OP-10, copy of letter dated 25.9.2013 Ex. OP-11, copy of test report Ex. OP-12, copies of letter Ex. OP-13 and OP-14, list of  sold the wheat seed to farmers Ex. OP-15, statement of  Balwant Ex. OP-16, statement of Satyawan Ex. OP-17, statement of Rohtash Ex. OP-18, statement of Raj Kumar Ex. OP-19, statement of Krishan Ex. OP-20, statement of Bijender Singh Ex. OP-21 and statement of Dhanpat Singh Ex. OP-22 and closed the evidence.

                        Raj Singh Vs. M.D. Haryana seeds etc.

                                      …4…

4.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant had purchased 120 Kilogram DBW-1743 wheat seed for a sum of Rs.2,520/- vide bill No.434357 from opposite party No.2 Ex. C-6. The above said seed was sown by the complainant in his two acres of land and after germination of the plants, the complainant noticed the slow process of the wheat crop and also seen the mixed plant of wheat crop. After this, the complainant moved an application before the Director Agriculture District, Jind upon which the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Safidon and others of the same department inspected the field of the complainant on 23.1.2013 and reported that 35% and 25% loss in the wheat crop. According to the complainant the losses caused in his crops was due to supply of sub-standard mis-branded wheat seed by the opposite parties and thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

5.     On the other hand, the opposite parties have averred that the complainant has not followed the proper procedure before sowing the wheat seed according to the instructions and directions of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have sold the certified seed to the complainant  which was dully certified by the Haryana State Certification Agency. So question of sub-standard mis-branded of seed does not arise. The wheat seed sold to the complainant was of good quality and same seed was sold to the other farmers but no even a single complaint came in the knowledge by the opposite parties  except the complainant. The complainant has not mentioned the killa

                        Raj Singh Vs. M.D. Haryana seeds etc.

                                      …5…

number on which he has sown the wheat crop. No notice was given to the opposite parties at the time of inspection  the field of the complainant by the agriculture department and the Inspection Committee of the experts has not been constituted according to the instructions of the Govt. by the agriculture department.

6.     No doubt, the alleged report dated 27.1.2014 was issued by the officers of agriculture department in respect of low germination of the wheat crop. The reason of low germination of the wheat crop in the field of complainant has not been mentioned and therefore, it cannot be said that low germination was because of any defect in the seed. The opposite parties produced the statement of other farmers to prove that the seed sold by the opposite parties was not inferior quality Ex. OP-16 to Ex. OP-22. Thus in the absence of any cogent evidence it cannot be said  that the wheat seed sold by the opposite parties to the complainant was of inferior qualities.

7.     For the above said reasons, no deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 2.2.2015

                                                                 President,

          Member                         District Consumer Disputes                                                                  Redressal Forum, Jind