DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> C.C. No. 42 of 5.2.2008<br /> Decided on : 11.3.2008 <br /> <br /> Telu Singh S/o Dalip Singh, R/o Village Jai Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> M/s. Kheti Sewa Centre, Booth No. 8, Grain Market, Bathinda through its Partner/Proprietor. <br /> ...... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member <br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Gurjant Singh Brar, Advocate<br /> For the Opposite Party : Exparte<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Four packs of Cotton Seeds were purchased by the complainant from the opposite party on 16.5.2007 for Rs. 2,980/- vide bill No. 532. Two other packs of Cotton Seeds were purchased by him for Rs. 1,480/- from the opposite party vide bill No. 534. Cotton Seeds were sown in four Killas of land. The crop did not bear bolls. He has to undergo loss. An application dated 3.10.2007 was moved by him to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda for taking appropriate action. It was forwarded to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda for inquiry. Team of the Agricultural Department had conducted the inquiry by way of visiting the fields in which American Cotton (Narma) crop was sown. Report No. 362 dated 11.1.2008 was issued according to which the yield from the cotton crop was three quintals per acre against the average yield of cotton in the block as 8.48 quintals per acre. Complainant alleges that the seeds supplied by the opposite party were sub standard. They were of poor quality. He has to undergo loss of more than Rs. 80,000/-. Apart from this, he has undergone mental tension, physical pain and loss for which he is entitled to compensation/damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, besides Rs. 3,000/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party. It was contacted through its Manager Jagjit Singh. Notice was received by him. After reading its contents, he had contacted the owner of the opposite party on telephone. He had also noted down the date and particulars of the case. Despite this, no-one appeared on behalf of the opposite party. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 3. In exparte evidence, Telu Ram complainant produced his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.7), affidavit (Ex.C.8) of Thana Singh, original bills dated 16.5.2007 (Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3), copy of report of Chief Agriculture Officer (Ex.C.4), photocopy of legal notice dated 17.1.2008 (Ex.C.5) & postal receipt (Ex.C.6).<br /> 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 5. Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.3 are the bills dated 16.5.2007 vide which complainant purchased six packs of Cotton Seeds from the opposite party. In support of his version, complainant has placed on record his affidavits Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.7. Apart from this, Ex.C.8 is the affidavit of one Thana Singh regarding the purchase of Cotton Seeds by the complainant from the opposite party and the fact that they were sown by him (complainant) in his four Killas of land, but they did not bear bolls and complainant has suffered loss. He has further tried to reiterate the version of the complainant.<br /> 6. Mr. Gurjant Singh Brar, learned counsel for the complainant argued that from the evidence on the record it stands amply established that Cotton Seeds purchased by the complainant from the opposite party were sub-standard and of poor quality on account of which the cotton crop did not yield produce and complainant suffered loss. For this, he drew our attention to the report of Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda according to which the cotton crop sown in the field of the complainant gave produce to the extent of three quintals per acre, whereas the average produce of cotton crop in the block was 8.48 quintals per acre. In this manner, he suffered loss in the produce to the extent of 5.48 quintals per acre.<br /> 7. After considering submission of the learned counsel for the complainant, we do not feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the complainant. The onus to prove the case is upon the complainant. He is required to prove it by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. In our view, the evidence to this effect is lacking. It is not the allegation of the complainant that seeds purchased by him from the opposite party did not germinate. Principal allegation is that the cotton crop did not yield bolls (fruit). He has not led any expert evidence that if cotton crop does not bear the bolls after it gets matured, it may be on account of the quality of the cotton seeds. Had the cotton seeds been sub-standard, there could not be germination. Complainant does not allege that there was no growth of the cotton crop in his fields. There can be various reasons due to which cotton crop may not bear bolls and give proper yield. They are such as quality of land, timely irrigation, quality of the fertilizers and insecticides used, proper use of the fertilizer and the insecticides and environmental changes, dangerous diseases of the crop etc. Complainant is alleging that the cotton crop sown by him did not give yield (fruit). It is not his case that there was no cotton produce from his crop at all. On the other hand, the report of the Chief Agriculture Officer is contrary according to which the crop in his field gave produce to the extent of three quintals per acre against average produce of 8.48 quintals per acre in the block. Hence, we have no hesitation in concluding that complainant has not come with clean hands. He has concealed the material fact of some produce from his cotton crop. So far as the report of the Chief Agriculture Officer is concerned, it is not worth placing credence as complainant has not produced the primary evidence. In Ex.C.4 Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda has not mentioned that he was a member of the team which had paid visit to the field of the complainant. To the contrary, he has mentioned that team of the Agricultural Department had gone for inspection of the field. It is not known who was heading that team. The name of the officer has not been disclosed. He must have submitted report to the Chief Agriculture Officer which has been withheld. That report could be preliminary evidence. Affidavit of the officer heading the team or other officials who were members thereof are not on the record. Moreover, the report does not appeal to reason as there is nothing in it as to how Chief Agriculture Officer came to know the exact weight of the produce from the cotton crop of the complainant as three quintals per acre, particularly when complainant does not allege that there was any produce from his cotton crop or that he has sold some produce yielded by the cotton crop sown by him in his field. Hence, there is no basis of the report that complainant suffered loss to the extent of 5.48 quintals per acre. <br /> 8. In view of our forgoing discussion, we are unable to accept the version of the complainant regarding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> 11.3.2008 President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />