Punjab

Patiala

CC/16/353

Charanjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kisan Sewa Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Sh H.N. Mehsampuri

12 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                           Consumer Complaint No. 353 of  8.9.2016

                                        Decided on:        12.9.2018

 

Charanjit Singh S/o Mewa Singh, resident of village Kotli, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

                                          

 

.                                          Consumer Complaint No. 354 of  8.9.2016

                                        Decided on:        12.9.2018

 

Sukhwinder Singh S/o Hari Singh, resident of village Jalalpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

                                            Consumer Complaint No. 355  of  8.9.2016

                                        Decided on:        12.9.2018

 

Sarban Singh S/o Nanak Singh, resident of village Shambu Kalan Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala..

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

                                            Consumer Complaint No. 356  of  8.9.2016

                                        Decided on:        12.9.2018

 

Sukhdev Singh S/o Prem Singh, resident of village Khokh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala..

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

                                        Consumer Complaint No. 357  of  8.9.2016

                                        Decided on:        12.9.2018

 

Paramjit Singh S/o Roop Singh, resident of village Jalalpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala..

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 358  of  8.9.2016

                                      Decided on:          12.9.2018

 

Ranjit Singh S/o Arjan Singh, resident of village Shambu Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala..

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 359 of  8.9.2016

                                      Decided on:          12.9.2018

 

Gurpreet Singh S/o Karnail Singh, resident of village Khokh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala..

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

 

                                         Consumer Complaint No. 360 of  8.9.2016

                                      Decided on:          12.9.2018

 

Manjit Singh S/o Karam Singh , resident of village Jalalpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala..

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

                                         Consumer Complaint No. 361 of  8.9.2016

                                      Decided on:          12.9.2018

 

Jaswant Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, resident of village Jalalpur Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala..

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

                                         Consumer Complaint No. 362 of  8.9.2016

                                      Decided on:          12.9.2018

 

Balbir Singh S/o Narang Singh, resident of village Khokh Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala..

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

                                         Consumer Complaint No. 363 of  8.9.2016

                                      Decided on:          12.9.2018

 

Bant Singh S/o Sarban Singh, resident of village Jalalpur Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala..

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

                                         Consumer Complaint No. 364 of  8.9.2016

                                      Decided on:          12.9.2018

 

Kesar Singh S/o Ajaib Singh, resident of village Khokh Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala..

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

                                         Consumer Complaint No. 365 of  8.9.2016

                                      Decided on:          12.9.2018

 

Ajaib Singh S/o Hazara Singh, resident of village Surajgarh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

                                         Consumer Complaint No. 366 of  8.9.2016

                                      Decided on:          12.9.2018

 

Baltej Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, resident of village Khokh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

                                          Consumer Complaint No. 367 of  8.9.2016

                                      Decided on:          12.9.2018

 

Harbans Singh S/o Sewa Singh, resident of village Khokh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

 

 

                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

                                          Consumer Complaint No. 368 of  8.9.2016

                                      Decided on:          12.9.2018

 

Ravinder Kumar S/o Chajju Singh, resident of village Gardi Nagar, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                      …………...Complainant

         

                                      Versus

1. Kisan Sewa Centre, G.T.Road, Near Railway Crossing Rajpura, through its Proprietor Jasmer Singh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
2. Jasmer Singh S/o Natha Singh, resident of Bhatheri, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, proprietor Kisan Sewa Centre, G.T.Road, Near Railway Crossing Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
3. Sumani Kanak Seedz Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, C-91/7, 2^nd Floor, Wazirpur, Industrial Area, Delhi.
4. Managing Director of Sumani Kanak Seedz Pvt. Ltd., C-91/7, 2^nd Floor, Wazirpur, Industrial Area, Delhi.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaints under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member                                      

                                                                            

ARGUED BY:

                             Sh.Rohit Mehsempuri,Advocate,counsel for complainants.   

                             Sh.Iqbal Singh Kamboj,Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1&2

                             Opposite party No.3 ex-parte.

                             Sh.Vaibhav Mangla, Advocate, counsel for OP No.4

 ORDER

                                    SH. KANWALJEET SINGH,  MEMBER

1        By this order we propose to dispose of the above noted complaints because the questions of facts and law involved in these complaints, except minor variations, are the same. Arguments were heard in common, in the above said cases.

2        First of all, coming to the facts of  complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. , it is alleged by the  complainant  that the agents of OPs contacted him and other agriculturists  for the purchase of seed of Chinni variety of Muskmelon. On the assurance that the seed of Chinni Variety will give more produce than other variety, the complainant purchased 500 gms seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 26.2.2016 being the dealers of OPs No.3&4 at the  rate of 14000/- per kg. It is stated that the crop of other varieties started giving fruit but the crop sown by complainant was not in a position to give produce. The fruit of other varieties was of 500 gm to 700 gm but at the stage the flower not grown on the crop of complainant and other agriculturist. The complainant came to know that the seed given to the complainant is duplicate and of low quality.At this the complainant alongwith other agriculturists of village Khokh and kotli, Tehsil Nabha and of village Jangpura, Jalalpura, Tehsil Rajpura, gave a representation to the Deputy Commission, Patiala on 5.5.2016.On the basis of the said representation, the representative of Agriculture Department inspected the spot on 6.5.2016 and gave his report in which it is stated that the crop at the spot is without any disease and without insects and the crop is of Chinni variety but the detailed report cannot be given at this stage. Another report dated 27.5.2016, was sent by the Deputy Director, Horticulture, Patiala to Deputy Commissioner, Patiala vide letter No.1750 dated 27.5.2016, in which it has been clearly mentioned that the fruit on the crop is black and bitter and the same is not having any rate in the market and it has been clearly observed that the agriculturist have been put to a monetary loss. In this report it has been mentioned that the department team inspected the villages on 18.5.2016 when the Chinni bread was grown by complainant and other agriculturist, has not started giving fruits due to non-ripping when the high breed Madhu 149 and Muskan is being plucked by the other agriculturist of the area. In the said report, it has been further mentioned that the team again inspected the crops on 23.5.2016 and according to that report the Chinni variety Muskmelon was plucked upto 50% when the other breeds have been plucked upto 90% and the Chinni crop has been prepared to give fruit after 90 days and the yield is 55 quintal per acre. The other variety were ready to pluck in a period of 60 days and gave yield of 125 quintal per acre and sold @ Rs.12/- to Rs.15/- per kg when the Chinni variety gave yield of 55 kg per acre and was sold @ Rs.3/- to Rs.5/- per kg. Accordingly net loss of 6,00,000/- has been caused to the complainant due to less yield and of less rate than other varieties of equal rate of seeds.

          It is stated that some of the agriculturist again moved representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala on 31.7.2016 and the Agriculture Officer, Patiala issued letter No.2427 dated 31.5.2016 to M/s Kissan Sewa Centre, G. T. Road, Near Railway Phatak, Rajpura by which their licence No.489 dated 2.5.2005 was suspended till further orders, which shows that a great and high injustice has been caused with the complainant and other agriculturist. After 31.5.2016, the complainant approached the OP for the payment of seed purchased from them and monetary loss caused to him but the OP flatly refused to do so. The complainant prays for the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental tension and  agony, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and  Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3        Upon notice OPs No.1,2&4 appeared through their advocates and filed the written reply.  Notice of the complaint was also sent to OP no.3 through registered post, but it did not turn up to contest the case and was accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.11.2016.

4        In the reply filed by OPs No.1&2, preliminary objections have been put forth that the complaint is not maintainable; that the Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The complainant has remedy to approach the competent court under The Seeds Act,1966, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. That the OPs are the dealer/stockiest of OP no.3 and have no liability as alleged in the complaint. The complainant has only purchased the sealed packing of seeds containing 25 gram seeds in each packet.; that there is no contract of market of marketing between the OPs and OPs No.3&4.The seeds were sold at the demand of the complainant and on the marketing of OPs no.3&4.

          On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased Chinni variety Muskmealon seeds from the OPs. The OPs never assured that the variety of seeds will give more produce and will fetch more rate in the market. It is denied that the OPs supplied duplicate seeds to the complainant of very low quality. The OPs sold the seeds which were supplied by OPs No.3&4, in its safe and intact position. There is no tampering on the packet of the seeds. The said seeds were of high quality and the complainant after satisfying himself, purchased the seeds from the OPs.

          It is stated that the license of the OPs was wrongly suspended and the same has been restored by the Director Agriculture Department, Punjab.The OPs denied all the other averments made in the complaint and have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5        In the reply filed by OP no.4, preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant does not come in the definition of ‘consumer’; that the complainant has already exhausted his remedies by filing other complaints, as such the present complaint is not maintainable and is just more an abuse of process of the court and deserves outright dismissal with exemplary costs; that this Hon’ble Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, as the issue relates to quality of seeds which is absolutely governed by the provisions of Seeds Act,1966 and any complaint about the sale or supply of defective seeds can be filed only under Seeds Act and not under Consumer Protection Act.

          On merits, it is admitted that OPs No.1&2 are the dealers of OPs No.3&4, who is a reputed company. It is denied that any assurance was given to the complainant that the said variety will give more yield. The complainant at his own has purchased the seeds from the OPs after verifying the quality from the market and other fellow agriculturists from other villages as the results of the seeds sold by the OPs was very much promising.

          It is stated that the sale made by the OPs is as per the scheduled and fixed rates and the complainant after satisfying himself from the market has purchased the seeds at the said rate.

          It is mentioned that before filing the present complaint, the complainant with some other agriculturists had filed a complaint before Agriculture Officer, Rajpura. The agriculture officer after entertaining their complaint, filed on 20.4.2016, inspected the spot through Horticulture Development Officer on 21.4.2016 and reported that the fruits have started growing out from the standing plants. After this inspection, Horticulture department made other three inspections on 6.5.2016, 18.5.2016 and on 23.5.2016. It was clearly reported that 50% of the crop of the fruit has already been harvested. The report dated 6.5.2016, helps the OP as it clearly says that the crop is likely to give bumper yield as it has been specifically mentioned that there are 4-5 fruits on a plant has got ample bearing of flowers which means bumper crop. It has also been observed that since the fruit grown is unripe, it may take two weeks to ripe and only thereafter its taste can be ascertained. It has also been observed by the agriculture team that the colour of the unripe fruit is green and not black as alleged by the complainant. It is stated that the report dated 27.5.2016 bearing No.1750 is the same report which has been made after compiling four inspections. It is denied that in the said report, it has been mentioned that the fruit on the crop is black and bitter and the same is not having any rate in the market. It is denied that any loss has been caused to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6        In complaint No.354 of 8.9.2016 titled as Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased 650 gms seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 7.2.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

7        In complaint No.355 of 8.9.2016 titled as Sarban Singh Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased 100 gms seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 24.2.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.60,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

8        In complaint No.356 of 8.9.2016 titled as Sukhdev Singh Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased 2 kg seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 22.2.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.12,00,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

9        In complaint No.357 of 8.9.2016 titled as Sarban Singh Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased 250 gms seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 15.2.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.1,50,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

10      In complaint No.358 of 8.9.2016 titled as Ranjit Singh Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased 250 gms seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 24.2.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.1,50,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

11      In complaint No.359 of 8.9.2016 titled as   Gurpreet Singh    Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased 1 kg seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 9.3.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.6,00,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

12      In complaint No.360 of 8.9.2016 titled as  Manjit Singh   Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased 500 gms seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 17.2.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.3,00,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

13      In complaint No.361 of 8.9.2016 titled as  Jaswant Singh  Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased 750 gms seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 17.2.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.4,50,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

14      In complaint No.362 of 8.9.2016 titled as Balbir Singh Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased  1 kg seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 26.2.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.6,00,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

15      In complaint No.363 of 8.9.2016 titled as Bant Singh  Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased I kg seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 17.2.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.6,00,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

16      In complaint No.364 of 8.9.2016 titled as Kesar Singh  Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased 1kg seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 26.2.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.6,00,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

17      In complaint No.365 of 8.9.2016 titled as Ajaib Singh  Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased  1 kg seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 9.3.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.6,00,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

18      In complaint No.366 of 8.9.2016 titled as Baltej Singh  Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased 1 kg seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 9.3.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.1,50,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

19      In complaint No.367 of 8.9.2016 titled as Harbans Singh  Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased 1 kg seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 26.2.2016 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.6,00,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

20      In complaint No.368 of 8.9.2016 titled as Ravinder Kumar   Vs. Kisan Sewa Centre & Ors. the complainant has alleged that he purchased ½ kg seed of chinni variety Muskmelon from OPs No.1&2 on 26.12.2015 @ Rs.14000/- per kg. In this complaint the complainant prayed Rs.3,00,000/-as compensation.  The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs in the previous complaint i.e. complaint No.353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors. remain the same in this case also.

21      Parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.

22      In complaint No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB, affidavit of Satnam Singh, Ex.C1 bill Ex.C2 empty Somani seedz polythene bag, ExC3 copy of complaint to Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, Ex.C4 copy of complaint dated 12.5.2016 to agriculture department, Ex.C5 copy of inspection report  dated 6.5.2016, Ex.C6 copy of complaint dated 27.5.2016,Ex.C7 copy of complaint dated 31.5.2016,Ex.C8 copy of complaint dated 31.5.2016 and closed the evidence.

23      In complaint No. 354 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Suraj Bhan. 

24      In complaint No. 355 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Suraj Bhan. 

21      In complaint No. 356 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Suraj Bhan and the sale bills Exs.C9 to C11 amounting to Rs.98194/-. 

22      In complaint No. 357 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Suraj Bhan. 

23      In complaint No. 358 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Suraj Bhan. 

24.     In complaint No. 359 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Suraj Bhan and the bill, Ex.C9.

25      In complaint No. 360 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Suraj Bhan. 

26      In complaint No. 361 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Suraj Bhan. 

27      In complaint No. 362 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Satnam Singh and the bills, Exs.C9 & C10.

28      In complaint No. 363 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Suraj Bhan. 

29      In complaint No. 364 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Satnam Singh and the bill, Ex.C9. 

30      In complaint No. 365 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Suraj Bhan. 

31      In complaint No. 366 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Satnam Singh and the bills, Exs.C9 & C10. 

32      In complaint No. 367 of 8.9.2016 the  ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered the same documents as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., except the affidavit Ex.CB of Satnam Singh and the bill, Ex. C9. 

33      In complaint No. 368 of 8.9.2016 no evidence has been lead despite giving opportunities and the same was closed vide order dated 26.10.2017.

34      The ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2, in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors.,  tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jasmer Singh, Prop. of Kissan Sewa Centre, Ex.OPB,  copy of renewal of licence, Ex.OP5 , copy of licence, Ex.OP6, copy of principal certificate, Ex.OP7, copy of complaint dated 3.5.2016, Ex.OP8, copy of complaint dated 29.12.2015, Ex.OP9  and closed the evidence.

35      The ld. counsel for OP no.4 tendered into evidence in the above said case Ex.OPA affidavit of  Parmod Singh, Manager, Somani Kanak Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,Ex.OP1 copy of complaint dated 5.5.2016,Ex.OP2 copy of complaint dated 27.5.2016, Ex.OP3 copy of submission of proposal for approval of research variety/Hybrid in Punjab,Ex.OP4 copy of licence and closed the evidence.

36      The OPs have tendered the same evidence in the other complaints as tendered in complaint case No. 353 of 8.9.2016 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kissan Sewa Centre & Ors., 

37      We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully with the valuable assistance of ld. counsel for the parties.

38      During arguments, the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleas, so no need to reiterate the same.

39      Further counsel for the complainant has argued that complainants came to this Forum with clean hands. Seeds are defective provided by OPs to the complainant. Further learned counsel argued and more stressed on documents Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-8. Muskmelon fruit are not ripen within time as compared to other varieties. Agriculture Department team inspected the crop by the Chief  Agriculture Officer, Patiala on 6/5/2016 and 18/5/2016 and found “CHANNI” breed was grown by complainant has not started giving  fruits due to non ripening when the high breed Madhu 149 and Muskan is being plucked by the other agriculturist of the area. On 23/5/2016 above said team again inspected the crop Chinni Variety. Muskmelon was plucked upto 50% when the other breeds have been plucked upto 90% and the “CHINNI” crop has been prepared to give fruit after 90 days and the yield is 55 quintal per acre.

40      On 31/5/2016 as per Ex.C-7 some agriculturists again moved a representation to the  Deputy Commissioner, Patiala to provide report dt. 6/5/2016 prepared by Department team (Supra) in which complainant mentioned that they received duplicate seeds and picture of the Muskmelon on the pamphlet is not similar to the ripen muskmelon grown in the fields of the complainant. No price received in the market.

41      As per para No.2 of the complaint neither a single document nor evidence produced on record by the complainant that Ops agent contacted the complainant to purchase the seeds of “CHINNI” variety of Muskmelon. Para No.7 of the complaint pleaded that black and bitter fruit has no value in the market. Ex.C-4 Krishi Vigyan Centre Patiala Assistant  Director (Training) namely Jaswinder Singh inspected the fields of the complainant on 06/05/2016 and mentioned that nothing to be presumed that what is the taste of the Muskmelon because the fruit is  unripe and its colour is green. These seeds are not recommended by the Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana. So nothing could be tell about the variety of such type of seeds in question.

42      Ex.C-5 is the investigation report prepared by ADO, Rajpura and Patiala on 06/05/2016 which is similar to Ex.C-4. Letter No.1750 dt.27/5/2016 is Ex.C-6 issued by Deputy Director, Horticulture, Patiala to D.C., Patiala that seeds of Muskmelon are not recommended by Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. So nothing could be tell about the variety of such type of seeds. Production is 55 quintal per acre and it took 90 days for ripen. Now question is that whether the seeds in question are duplicate or low quality seeds and bitterness of the muskmelon fruit? The burden/ onus of proof is on the complainant to prove his own case. From this angle complainant neither produced any expert report of Muskmelon regarding taste is bitter as pleaded by complainant in his pleadings in para No.7 of the complaint nor shown any documentary evidence that seeds in question are duplicate/ low quality seeds. As per Ex.C-7 complainant pleaded “Muskmelon on the pamphlet is not similar to the ripen muskmelon.” “A man can lie, but documents can’t. To trace out the truth, we have gone through the document Ex.C-2 very minutely and observe that on the back of seed container it is clear cut mentioned that, “The picture on this container is intended to represent  the kind only”.

          Moreover ,  no price received in the market by complainant as per para 7 of the complaint No.367 of 8.9.2016, is falsify from Ex.C9, sale bill dated 25.5.2016, in the market. Same is falsify in complaint No.359 of 8.9.2016 vide bill,Ex.C9 dated 21.5.2016.

          Same is falsified in complaint No.356 of 2016, vide Exs.C9 to C11, sale bills dated 26.5.2016, 27.5.2016, 30.5.2016 of Rs. 3270/-, Rs.45,442/- & Rs.49,482/-respectively.

          The version of the complainant is falsified in complaint No.364 of 2016 vide sale bill Ex.C9 dated 27.5.2016.In complaint No.366/2016 vide sale bills Ex.C9  dated 19.5.2016 for Rs.2800 & C10 dated 28.5.2016 for Rs.4922/- and in complaint No.362 of 8.9.2016 vide sale bill Ex.C9 dated 28.5.2016 of Rs.33,173/- issued by New Sabzi Mandi , Nabha & Ex.C10 dated 23.5.2016 of Rs.1360/-.

43      However, Ex.C-6 on  page 2 from bottom to 4^th line, it is mentioned the Moisture is 2 % in the crop of Muskmelon while as per Ex.C-2 on the back side of the container seed, it is mentioned Moisture (MAX) 7%. We observe from the factum and circumstances of the cases that  production of crop depend upon the soil of the land, weather,  is suitable or not for the particular crop is a major factor. Even the facts of both the judgments 2005(2) C.P.C.292 Citibank N.A.Global Consumer Bank Vs. Shri Naranjan Mohan Singh and others & 2016(3) C.P.J.673 Sabmiller India Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma, produced by the complainant’s counsel during arguments   are not similar to the case in hand.

44      Resultantly, we dismiss the complaint. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Certified copies of this order, be also placed on the files of above mentioned other complaints. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:12.9.2018                

                                                                  

                                           KANWALJEET SINGH  NEELAM GUPTA

                                                MEMBER                         MEMBER