Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/10/2163

SARTHAK SEEDS AND AGROTECH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEHARBAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SH. S.K VERMA

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2163 OF 2010

(Arising out of order dated 26.08.2010 passed in C.C.No. 240/2009 by District Commission, Hoshangabad)

 

SARTHAK AND AGRITECH,

PROPRIETOR SHRI RAMLAKHAN MEENA,

NAI GALLA MANDI, HATHWAAS ROAD,

PIPARIYA, DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)                                                … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. MEHARBAN SINGH PATEL,

    S/O SHRI KASHIRAM PATEL,

    R/O VILLAGE-DHANASHRI, TEHSIL-PIPARIYA,

    DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)

    THROUGH PRESIDENT, NARESH UPBHOKTA

    SANRAKSHAN SAMITI, SOHAGPUR

 

2. M.P.SEED & FARM DEVELOPMENT

    CORPORATION, ARERA HILLS,

    BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

3. COLLECTOR, HOSHANGABAD

 

4. M.P.SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY,

    GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL THROUGH MANAGER

 

5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE,

    OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE,

    HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)                                                                          …. RESPONDENTS.

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2270 OF 2010

(Arising out of order dated 26.08.2010 passed in C.C.No. 240/2009 by District Commission, Hoshangabad)

 

M.P.SEED & FARM DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION, ARERA HILLS,

BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                                            … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. MEHARBAN SINGH PATEL,

    S/O SHRI KASHIRAM PATEL,

    R/O VILLAGE-DHANASHRI, TEHSIL-PIPARIYA,

    DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)

    THROUGH PRESIDENT, NARESH UPBHOKTA

    SANRAKSHAN SAMITI, SOHAGPUR

-2-

2. SARTHAK AND AGRITECH,

    PROPRIETOR SHRI RAMLAKHAN MEENA,

    NAI GALLA MANDI, HATHWAAS ROAD,

    PIPARIYA, DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)

 

3. COLLECTOR, HOSHANGABAD

 

4. M.P.SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY,

    GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL THROUGH MANAGER

 

5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE,

    OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE,

    HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)                                                                          …. RESPONDENTS.  

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2323 OF 2010

(Arising out of order dated 26.08.2010 passed in C.C.No. 240/2009 by District Commission, Hoshangabad)

 

M.P.SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY,

GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL THROUGH MANAGER                                       … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. MEHARBAN SINGH PATEL,

    S/O SHRI KASHIRAM PATEL,

    R/O VILLAGE-DHANASHRI, TEHSIL-PIPARIYA,

    DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)

    THROUGH PRESIDENT, NARESH UPBHOKTA

    SANRAKSHAN SAMITI, SOHAGPUR

 

2. SARTHAK AND AGRITECH,

    PROPRIETOR SHRI RAMLAKHAN MEENA,

    NAI GALLA MANDI, HATHWAAS ROAD,

    PIPARIYA, DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)

 

3. M.P.SEED & FARM DEVELOPMENT

    CORPORATION, ARERA HILLS,

    BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

4. COLLECTOR, HOSHANGABAD

 

5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE,

    OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE,

    HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)                                                                          …. RESPONDENTS.     

             

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :          MEMBER

-3-

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                None for the complainant.

           Shri Arvind Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-Sarthak Seeds.

           Ms. Sambhavna Rajput, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-Seed Corporation.

           Shri Yogesh Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4-Seed Certification Agency.

           None for the opposite party no.3 and 5.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 21.11.2022)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:             

                   Aforesaid appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.  This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.2163/2010 unless otherwise stated.  

2.                Aforesaid appeals arise out of the order dated 26.08.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.240/2009.  First Appeal No.2163/2010 has been filed by the opposite party no.1-Sarthak Seeds, First Appeal no.2270/2010 has been filed by the opposite party no.2-Seed Corporation and First Appeal No.2323/2010 has been filed by opposite party no.4-Seed Certification Agency for setting aside the impugned order by which the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant against them.

 

-4-

3.                Facts of the case in brief as stated by the complainant/respondent no.1 are that in June-2009 he had purchased 20.10 quintal Soyabean Kamdhenu Seeds JS 9305 from the opposite party no.1/respondent no.2 for a sum of Rs.68,340/- It is alleged that when he sowed the seeds, there was no germination, then (gramsewak) an employee of opposite party no.5/respondent no.5 inspected the field and prepared a panchnama and told that the seeds are not good. The complaint was made to opposite party no.3 and 5. It is alleged that when bill was asked from the opposite party no.1, the bill was not given. Thus the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking cost of seeds Rs.68,340/-, labour charges for sowing the seeds Rs.7,70,000/- compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with costs of Rs.5,000/-

4.                The opposite party no.1 resisted the complaint stating that it never sold any such seeds to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 on 02.06.2009 had purchased 57 quintal soyabean seeds from Kamdhenu Bio Seeds, Khokhrakalan, Tehsil-Kalapipal, District-Shajapur and sold the same to 6 farmers of Pipariya. The opposite party no.1 had filed bill regarding purchase and sale of 57 quintal seeds along with certificate of Seed Certification Agency. The opposite party no.1 did not sell the said seeds to the complainant. The complainant had filed a complaint on the basis of fabricated and false grounds to obtain undue advantage. It may be possible

-5-

that the complainant had purchased the seeds from his familiar from Galla Mandi. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- 

5.                The opposite party no.2 remained absent before the District Commission, therefore was proceeded ex-parte.

6.                The opposite party no. 3 and 5 had filed joint reply stating that the Agriculture Development Officer, Kendra-Dhanasari, Block-Pipariya on 17.07.2009 inspected the field of the complainant wherein he found that there was 10% to 15% germination and as stated by the complainant that he had purchased the same from the opposite party no.1. The complainant unnecessarily made them as a party to the case whereas no transaction took place between the complainant and the opposite party no.3 & 5. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-

7.                The opposite party no.4 resisted the complaint stating that the complainant had alleged that he had purchased Kamdhenu seeds but he did not implead the Kamdhenu Seeds Company as a party to the case, which is a necessary party for disposal of the case. The complainant did not follow the procedures before sowing the seeds. As per complainant, he had purchased 20 quintal seeds for sowing in 50 acres of land which is too less

looking to the area of the field. In the certificate given by the opposite party no.3, the germination of seeds of alleged lot no was found to be 75%.

-6-

8.               The District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party no.1, 2 and 4 and dismissed the complaint against the opposite party no. 3 and 5 and directed the opposite party no.1 to pay cost of seeds Rs.68,340/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days. The opposite party no.1 was directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with cost of Rs.1,000/- and the opposite party no. 2 and 4 jointly or severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. It is further directed that if the amount is not paid within a period of one month, the amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a.  

9.                Heard learned counsel for the parties.  Perused the record.

10.              Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party no.2 argued that the District Commission erred in allowing the complaint against the opposite party no.2 as there is contract of opposite party no.2 with the complainant as his allegation is that he had purchased the seeds from the opposite party no.1. The District Commission failed to consider the documents and evidence filed by the parties. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set-aside.

11.              Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/respondent no.2 argued that it never sold the seeds to the complainant.  It is further argued that there are various reasons attributed with the quality of crops which is

-7-

mainly depended upon the climate, humidity and temperature.  Thus in the absence of specific documentary evidence, that the complainant had purchased the seeds from the opposite party no.1, the District Commission has erroneously allowed the complaint against the opposite party no.1 and in directing to refund cost of seeds as also to pay compensation.  

12.              The complainant has filed fifteen documents C-1 to C-15 along with his affidavit. He has also filed affidavit of Shri Devendra Patel, Hemant Patel, Ranjeet patel and Dhanpal Patel in support of his contentions that he had purchased the seeds from the opposite party no.1 and on sowing the same, there was no germination. On the other hand Proprietor of opposite party no.1 Ramlakhan Meena has filed his affidavit. He has also filed affidavits of Shri Hargovind, Pappu Kushwaha, Pradeep Patel, Pancham Singh Patel, Madanlal Patel and Vinod Patel, who had purchased seeds from him, in support of his contentions. They swore that they had purchased the seeds from the opposite party no.1 and they have got good results. He has also filed documents R-1 to R-16, in which R-15 and R-16 are bill books.

13.              On going through the record, we find that though the complainant has filed affidavits of some persons in support of his contentions but he failed to file any bill to substantiate his contention that he had purchased seeds from the opposite party no.1. The onus to prove that he had purchased seeds from the opposite party no.1 was on himself, which

-8-

he failed to discharge the same. So far as the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party no.1 did not provide bill to him is concerned, the persons who had purchased the seeds from the opposite party no.1 were given bills and copies recorded in the bill book R-15 and R-16 filed by the opposite party no.1. If the opposite party no.1 did not provide the bill, the complainant could have made complaint about it to the competent authority. The persons, who had given affidavit in favour of complainant that the opposite party no.1 did not provide the bill, they also could have made complaint to the competent authority.  Having not done so, it is inferred that the complainant has not been able to prove that he had purchased the seeds from the opposite party no.1. Mere filing of affidavit did not prove that the complainant had purchased seeds from the opposite party no.1. Thus in absence of any concrete proof that the complainant had purchased seeds from the opposite party no.1’s shop and on sowing the same, there was no germination, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible.  

14.              In the absence of any evidence that the seeds were sold by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant and the same were defective the District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1.  

15.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of a considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside.

-9-

16.              In the result, the appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

17.              This order be placed in First Appeal No. 2163/2010 and a copy be placed in First Appeal No.2270/2010 & First Appeal No.2323/2010.

 

       (A. K. Tiwari)      (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

 Presiding Member            Member                     Member