Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/258/2021

Lilu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jyoti Agriculture - Opp.Party(s)

Ishwar Singh

30 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                      Complaint Case No. : 258 of 2021

                                                      Date of Institution    : 31.12.2021

                                                      Date of decision:      : 30.08.2024

 

Lilu Ram son of Sh. Chitru R/o Ward No.13, Bawani Khera, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.

                                        ...Complainant. 

                                                    Versus.

1. Jyoti Agriculture Store, Bawani Khera,Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani, through its Proprietor Krishan Pal Siongh.

 

2. Mahalaxmi Trading Company, 122, New Grain Market, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, through its authorized signatory.

 

3. Greenline Agriseeds, 56 New Anaj Mandi,Hisar Tehsil and District Hisar-125001, through its authorized signatory.

                   

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Ishwar Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Arvind Sharma, Advocate for Ops No.1 & 2.

                    OP No.3 exparte vide order dated 11.07.2022.

 

                                                  ORDER:

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.                 Brief facts of the case present complaint are that complainant purchased the seed of Fodder Maize from OP No.1 for his 6 acre 14 marlas agriculture land.  As per complainant, the alleged seed was manufactured by OP No.3 and OP No.1 purchased the same from OP No.2.  It is submitted that the seed was sown as per instructions of OPs which did not grow properly. So complainant approached OP No.1 but of no avail. Complainant has submitted that due to supply of sub-standard seed by OPs, he has suffered huge economical loss of Rs.4,80,000/- which include cost of preparation of land, fertilizers and cost of labour besides mental pains and physical harassment. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs seeking direction against them to pay Rs.4,80,000/- as mentioned above, further to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest from the date of purchase of the seeds till its realization. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, locus standi, cause of action, complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the seed was of best quality and such seeds was also sold to other farmers but no complaint ever received. It is urged that it might be that complainant had not sown the crop properly. It is denied that the seeds were of sub-standard quality. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service or negligence on their part resulting into any monetary loss to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.3 did not appear despite notice, as such, it was proceeded against as exparte vide order dated 11.07.2022.

4.                 Complainant in evidence, filed his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith affidavits Ex.CW2/A, Ex. CW3/A and Ex. CW4/A of S/Sh. Mange Ram, Pawan Kumar, Navratan respectively and closed the evidence.  

5.                 On the other side, on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2, affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Mr. Vinay Sharma, Proprietor Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3 were tendered and closed the evidence.

6.                 We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record minutely.  Complainant to prove his complaint has placed on record, purchase bill of the alleged seeds Ex.C-4, photographs of the fields qua germination of the seed Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-10, copy of jamabandi Ex. C-11. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that from the evidence produced on behalf of complainant, there was less germination of seeds due to sub-standard quality sold by the OPs to the complainant and thereby caused heavy loss and thus the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant as prayed for in the complaint.

7.                 On the other side, learned counsel for contesting OPs has argued that the seeds were of best quality. The counsel further argued that the loss, if any, has occurred to the complainant due to his own fault. The counsel has urged that they have sold the said seeds to many farmers but no complaint has yet been received from any of them except the complainant. Further, there is no report of agriculture department/expert person qua loss occurred to the complainant due to seeds sold by Ops. Further, no officer of agriculture department has been summoned to authenticate the loss caused to the complainant due to the alleged seeds. As such, the counsel has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

8.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that to substantiate the defect in the seed, it was necessary to place on record report of Agriculture department/Expert person in the relevant field.  In the absence of report of agriculture department, we are not able to conclude whether the seeds were defective or not. The record so produced by complainant in support of his case also does not prove that the less germination and production was due to defective seeds sold by the OPs whereas it may be for the other reasons viz. water, soil, pesticides or weather etc. as alleged by the OPs. Hence, the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated:30.08.2024.