Haryana

Ambala

CC/399/2010

VARINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S KHUBBAR SEEDS STORE - Opp.Party(s)

R.K SINGH

17 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                 Complaint Case No.: 399 of 2010

                                     Date of Institution    :03.09.2010

                                                                                                 Date of Decision:     17.06.2015

Varinder Singh son of late Shri Jatti Singh, resident of VPO Boh, Tehsil & District, Ambala.

……….Complainant

Versus

1.         M/s Khubbar Seeds Store, resident of 12-A, Vistar New Anaj Mandi, Ambala City, through its Prop. Shri Mittarpal Khubbar.

2.         M/s Seven Seas Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. resident of Plot No.18, Survey No.192/A, Tumkunta Village Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-78, through its Managing Director.

3.         M/s Luxmi  Beej Co., 176-177, New Grain Market, Ambala City through its Prop.

                                                                                                            ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:         SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. ANIL SHARMA, MEMBER.

Present:           Sh. R.K. Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. P.S. Sandhu, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.

                        Ops No.2 & 3 exparte.

 

ORDER         

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased Paddy seeds variety-1121, quantity 24 Kg at the rate of Rs.80/- per Kg. vide Bill No.311 dated 20.05.2009 from OP No.1. Complainant sowed the seeds for ‘Paneeri’ by following proper process  and replanted  the same in fields but the complainant was astonished when the paddy seeds does not grow  as per their variety i.e. 1121.  So, complainant informed  the OP No.1 that  the seeds so purchased from him were not of variety-1121 but the OP No.1 assured the complainant that the seeds variety is 1121 and he will consult the company and OP company will sent their scientist to check the abovesaid paddy seeds plantation.  After few days, Scientist of OP company visited the fields of complainant and assured him that the seeds are of variety-1121 but when complainant brought his crop for sale in Anaj Mandi, it was known to him that the variety of paddy seeds is ‘Sugandha-999’ instead of 1121. Thus, complainant submitted that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of Ops whereby the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.20,000/- approximately, per acre.  Complainant got served a legal notice dated 18.01.2010 upon the Ops No.1 & 2 but of no avail. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of the complaint against him as OP No.1 is neither manufacturer of the seeds in question nor OP No.1 has purchased the said seeds to sold to the complainant directly from the manufacturing company rather the seeds in question were purchased from M/s Luxmi Beej Co. Ambala City vide bill No.3879.  On merits, it has been submitted that complainant alongwith one Udham Singh  came at their shop for purchase of paddy seeds-1121 but the seeds were not available with them, however, on the request of complainant, answering OP purchased  the seeds from M/s Luxmi Beej Co., Ambala City  vide Bill No.3879  and thereafter  sold the same to complainant and thus there is no unfair trade practice on their part.  It has been denied that complainant has suffered any loss due to act of OP No.1. In the end, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

                        OP No.3 refused to receive the summons, hence, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.07.2011 whereas OP No.2 also did not bother to appear despite publication in Newspaper ‘Dainik Bhasker’ dated 17.11.2012, as such, OP NO.2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.11.2012.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure CX of the complainant alongwith documents Annexures C-A to C-I on behalf of complainant and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, Mittar Pal Singh Khubbar, Prop. of M/s Khubbar Seeds Store tendered his Affidavit as Annexure RX alongwith  documents as Annexures R-1 to R-5 and closed his evidence.

4.                     We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The main grouse of the complainant is that he purchased paddy seeds variety 1121 from OP No.1 and planted the same with due care and preparation in 4 acres of land but when the yields /crop of the same was brought for sale in Anaj Mandi, the proprietor of Anaj Mandi told that the variety of the paddy crop is ‘Sugandha-999’ instead of 1121.  In this way, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.20,000/- approximately, per acre which is clear cut case of deficiency  and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.

                        On the other hand, the counsel for OP No.1 urged that complaint is not maintainable against OP No.1 as he is not a manufacturer of the seeds in question rather he purchased the seeds from OP No.3 and sold it to the complainant in sealed bags. The counsel for the OP No.1 vehemently argued that there is no any document or report of Agriculture Officer/Expert on the file  wherefrom  it is proved that the complainant’s crops are ‘Sugandha 999’ instead of variety-1121.

5.                     After hearing  the counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the firm view that complainant has failed to discharge his burden to prove that the seeds so sold by OP No.1 to him was not of 1121 variety rather was of Sugandha 999. Mere to say that the alleged seeds were not of variety -1121 is not suffice in the absence of any documentary proof especially when  the complainant is alleging manufacturing defect in the seeds without producing any expert opinion though as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act it is mandatory to get it tested from the concerned Laboratory or Expert. Section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act is reproduced as under:- “where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined  without proper analysis or test of the goods,  the District Forum shall after obtaining a sample of goods, send it to appropriate laboratory with a direction that such laboratory make such analysis or test with a view to find out whether  such goods suffer from any defect, alleged in the complaint or from any other defect.”  The counsel for the Op No.1 also relied upon case law reported in 2009(1) CPC Page 471(NC) Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Parchuri Narayana wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that “quality of seeds should have been determined by adopting procedure given under Section 13(1)(c) and not merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions.”

                    In the present case also, the complainant has failed to tender any report or documents of Agriculture Officer/Expert to prove his case that the crops were of variety ‘Sugandha 999’ instead of 1121. As such, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and thus we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced:17.06.2015        

                                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                                          (A.K. SARDANA)

                                                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                       Sd/-

           (ANIL SHARMA)

                                                                                                                     MEMBER