Haryana

StateCommission

A/1242/2016

RAM KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORP.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SHUBHANKAR BAWEJA

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1242 of 2016

Date of Institution:  20.12.2016

Date of Decision:    24.01.2017

 

Ram Kumar son of Rattan Singh, resident of Village Bibipur Kalan, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Pehowa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra through its S.D.O/Manager.

 

2.      Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Umri, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, through its Deputy Director.

 

3.      Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Registered and Head Office; Bays No.3-6, Sector 2, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

 

4.      The Collector, Kurukshetra.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                         

 

Present:     Mr. Shubhankar Baweja, Advocate for the appellant.                

                            

 

O R D E R

 

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated November 23^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed.

2.      Ram Kumar-complainant purchased 60 Kg certified paddy seed RP-114 from Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Pehowa-opposite party No.1 on May 14^th, 2011.  Lateron, the complainant found that his crop was not satisfactory because of the defective seed.  He filed complaint before the District Forum.

3.      Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited and its functionaries-opposite parties, in their, written version pleaded that they used to sell the seed, which was duly certified by State Seed Certification Agency.    

4.      The field of the complainant was inspected by four Agriculture Officials on September 23^rd, 2011 in the presence of the complainant.  The Agriculture Officials submitted their report (Exhibit C-7).  A perusal of the report shows that there was huge loss to the crop due to the blight and the entire crop had flattened on account of which it could not be seen that what kind of plants were of the paddy.  The complainant also could not show the empty bags, tag, label etc duly supplied by the opposite parties at the time of purchase of the seed.  From the report (Exhibit C-7), it is not proved that the loss occurred to the complainant was on account of defective seed.  In view of this, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. The appeal is also dismissed.

 

  

Announced 24.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK