Haryana

StateCommission

A/831/2016

SALESMAN INDRISH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ISSAAQ KHAN - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI KANT

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

          

                                                                    First Appeal No  :   831 of 2016

Date of Institution:  09.09.2016

                                                                   Date of Decision:    14.02.2017

 

 

1.      Indrish Sales Man, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, HSDC Office, Nuh, District Mewat, Haryana.

 

2.      Deepak Sharma, ASPO, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Quality Control, Bays No.3-6, Sector 2, Panchkula at present posted at Pataudi.

 

3.      Ramesh Malik, ASPO, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Quality Control, Bays No.3-6, Sector 2, Panchkula, at present posted at Pataudi.

 

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Issaaq Khan son of Sh. Juhar Khan, resident of Village Rithora, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

 

Argued by:          Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate for the appellants.

                             Issaaq Khan-complainant in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

          By filing this appeal, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited and its functionaries-opposite parties (for short ‘Corporation’) have challenged the order dated July 26^th, 2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mewat (for short, ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Issaaq Khan-complainant was allowed.  The Corporation was directed to pay Rs.30,000/-, that is, Rs.10,000/- per acre to the complainant on account of expenses incurred by him on the wheat crop.   

 

2.      The complainant purchased 120 Kg of wheat seed of HD-2967 variety from the Corporation vide receipt (Annexure A-6).  There was no proper germination because of defective seed.  He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. 

3.      The complaint was allowed as stated in paragraph No.1 of this order.

4.      The Corporation filed written version alleging that the seed was sold to the complainant after having certificate (Annexure A-5) from Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and it was a pure seed.  A report of the Agriculture Officer was also sought on the application filed by the complainant.  The Agriculture Officers vide report (Annexure A-4) stated that the germination was less because there was less wetness in the field and seed was sown in depth.  The report does not state that there was any defect in the seed.  The District Forum in paragraph No.10 of the impugned order has also held that the complainant failed to prove that the Corporation sold the seed below the required standards and admitted that possibility cannot be ruled out that there was some lapse on the part of the complainant.   Not only that, in the complaint filed by the complainant, it was stated that the seed sown by him in his three acres of land was fell short and he sown the seed, which was with him earlier.  In view of the fact that the seed sold by the Corporation was duly sold after getting the certificate from the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency, thus, the seed was pure.  Since it was observed by the District Forum itself that there was no defect in the seed, so, question of directing the Corporation to pay Rs.30,000/-, that is, Rs.10,000/- per acre to the complainant does not arise.  The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint.  Hence, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. 

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.15000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 14.02.017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK