BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.  

                                                Consumer Complaint no. 123 of 2019                                                               

                                              Date of Institution                   :   11.03.2019

                                                Date of Decision             :   29.04.2019

1.Jassa alias Jaswant Singh, aged 54 years.

2.Ranjit Singh aged 46 years,

Both sons of Shri Karnail Singh son of Shri Sadhu Singh, residents of village Kuttabadh, Tehsil Ellanabad District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus

Haryana Seeds, 14-C, HSIDC, Hisar Road, Sirsa Tehsil & District Sirsa, through its Director/Manager Propreitor.

...…Opposite party.

    Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

    SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER

                   MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for complainant.

OP exparte.

ORDER

                   The case of complainant, in brief, is that they are agriculturists by profession having agricultural land at village Kuttabadh Tehsil Ellenabad comprised in khewat No.543 Khatuni No.621 kittas 56, measuring 359 kanal 3 marlas. They had purchased 40 Kgs of  paddy seeds PB-6 (1401 Basmati) bearing Lot No.VCT-17-0754-06 for Rs.2600/-from OP vide cash memo No.016 dated 10.05.2018. Thereafter, complainants had sown the same in their 18 acres of land and also provided requisite quantity of water and fertilizer etc. as per specification but there was not sufficient crops from the seeds. On the application of the complainants, officials/scientist of Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant on 26.10.2018 and in their report they have reported that about 18 to 20 % plants are of different specie i.e. Chauba (wild paddy) and that due to this, the complainant has suffered a loss about 15 to 20 %.  In normal course, the complainants were expecting 32 quintals crop from per acre but there was only 28 quintals of crop from per acre and it all happened due to mixed quality of seeds.  Due to inferior/substandard and weak quality of seeds, the complainants have suffered huge financial loss. They contacted the Op, time and again and requested for making the loss good but it refused to do. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.  Hence, this complaint.

2.       Notice was sent to the OP but the same was received back with the report of refusal, therefore, OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.04.2019.

3.       Thereafter, the complainants have led their evidence.

4.    We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.

5.       The complainants, in order to prove their case, have furnished affidavit of Jassa @ Jaswant Singh Ex.CW1/A, in which, he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and also tendered affidavit of Ranjit Singh Ex.CW2/B, who also deposed in support of the complainant No.1.  The complainants have tendered documents copy of invoice Ex.C1, application to DDA, Sirsa written by complainants Ex.C2, intimation regarding sending of inspection report to complainants Ex.C3, inspection report Ex.C4, copy of order dated 23.01.2019 passed by this Forum Ex.C5, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C6, copy of jamabandi Ex.C7 and description of seed Ex.C8.

6.   The perusal of the evidence of the complainants reveals that in order to prove the allegations made in the complaint qua low quality and mixing of seeds, the complainants have relied upon the report of Agriculture Department, which is Ex.C4. This report reveals that the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer inspected the land measuring 18 acres of land and found that there are 18 to 20 % of plants are different being wild paddy, as a result thereof, the farmer had suffered a loss of 15 to 20 % in his crop.  The perusal of this report further reveals that the Inspecting Officer has not mentioned the killa number, khewat number or the description of the land, which he had inspected at the spot. Nor, he mentioned the name of the person in whose presence, he inspected the said land. It also reveals that he did not serve a prior notice to the Op before visiting at the spot nor he has taken any sample of the paddy seeds from the OP in order to send the same to the Analysis lab in order to ascertain whether the seed which was purchased by complainant were of mixed quality or not. The complainants have not placed on record any report of analysis lab in support of their claim that the seed which was purchased by the complainants was of mixed quality.  So, it appears from the evidence of the complainants that the complainants have failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence in order to prove their allegations.

7.       In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainants have failed to prove their allegations and the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit with no order as to cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.  

Announced in open Forum.                                            President,

Dated:29.04.2019                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                         Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                             Member                         Member                                                               

                      DCDRF,Sirsa                 DCDRF,Sirsa