DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001
Consumer Complaint No: 618 of 2009 Date of Institution: 22.07.2009 Date of Decision: 15.02.2016.
Davinder s/o Sh. Vishal Singh, Resident of Jahidpur, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus
Kedarnath Budh Ram, near Shiv Mandir Haily Mandi, Pataudi, Gurgaon through its proprietor/owner.
Dhan Laxmi Seeds Sirsa, District Sirsa (Haryana) through its Managing Director/Proprietor/Authorized Signatory
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Shri R.P.Yadav, Adv for the complainant.
Shri K.S.Chauhan, Adv for the opposite party No.1
OP-2 exparte
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased seeds PL-426 (Barley) JAU 18 bags weighing 540 kg along with other seeds from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.9630/- vide Receipt No.3509 dated 23.10.2008 and the complainant had sown the same in his agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of village Jahidpur, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari though the said bags were properly sealed and were having green tag of OP-2. However, 50 % of the crop was smaller in size and 50 % was bigger in size and the 50 % were having two Ballies (lines) and remaining 50 % were having six Ballies (lines). In this regard complainant made a complaint to Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Rewari who appointed SMS Agro, KVK, Rampura, SMS (PP) Rewari and BAO Kosli and Shri Budhraj i.e. OP-1. They inspected the spot and made report in Feb, 2009 that 40-50 % seeds of JAU were of low quality and thus, the complainant has suffered financial loss of Rs.5 Lacs due to defective seeds. He requested the opposite parties to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lacs but of no use and thus, the opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainant. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5 Lacs on account of loss of crops due to supply of defective seeds and Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony. The complainant in support of his complaint has filed his affidavit, and copy of inspection report.
2 OP-1 in its written reply has alleged that he is retail trader and sold the seeds as purchased from OP-2 to the complainant. The seeds have not been got checked by the complainant. The opposite party No.2 has denied all the allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3 OP-2 failed to turn up despite service and thus, was proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.11.2013.
4 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
5 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that the complainant has purchased barley seed from OP-1 vide Receipt No.3509 dated 23.10.2008 and after sowing the same in his agriculture land there was loss of 40-50 % crop and the same was reported by the team of agriculture department and thus, on account of said loss he suffered financial loss of Rs. 5 Lacs.
6 However as per the version of the opposite party no.1, the OP-1 has supplied the same seeds which he has received from the OP-2. The complainant has also failed to produce on record the laboratory/testing report of the seeds and without the compliance of section 13(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.
7 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that the complainant has purchased the barley seeds from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.9630/- vide Bill No.3509 dated 23.10.2008 for the purpose of sowing the same in his agriculture land. However, there is nothing on the file in order to come to the conclusion about the ownership of agriculture land or tenancy of the complainant over the agricultural land. So much so the complainant has not mentioned the description of the agricultural land in the complaint itself. Learned counsel for the complainant was asked several times to submit the Khasra-Girdawari of the land in order to show that the said seeds infact were purchased by him for cultivation in his land but despite availing numerous opportunities no such document was placed on file in order to prove that the complainant was owner/tenant of the agricultural land in which he has sown the seeds in question.
8 It is again pertinent to mention here that learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the report of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Rewari but in the said report also there is no detail of the agricultural land which was allegedly inspected by agricultural officers. Moreover, the said report is obtained in absence of the opposite party. It is settled law that whenever any inspection is being conducted then it was mandatory on the part of inspecting authority to issue notice to the opposite party and to prepare inspection report in his presence and in the absence of notice to the OP the said report is liable to be discarded as the same is procured one.
9 Therefore, in our of our above observation and discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
15.02.2016 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
