Haryana

Ambala

CC/269/2015

Harvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Naveen Kumar Mohinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

D.S. Khubber

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 269 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution         : 18.09.2015

                                                          Date of decision   : 28.11.2017

 

Harvinder Singh son of Shri Tarlochan Singh, resident of village Manka P.O. Manki, Tehsil  Barara, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       M/s Naveen Kumar Mohinder Singh, Village Manka P.O. Manki, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, (Authorised dealer of Pesticides & Seeds), through its Prop. Shri Naveen Kumar.

 

2.       Standard Seeds Co. near Shri Krishna Dharam Kanta, VPO-Damla, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, through its Prop/Parner.

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.                           

 

Present:       Sh. D.S.Khubber, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Sanjeev Saini, counsel for OP No. 1.

                   Sh. Yajvander Singh, counsel for OP No. 2.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant  Harvinder Singh is an agriculturist by profession. On 10.05.2015,  the complainant approached the OP No.1 for purchase of paddy seeds of quality i.e. Swift or 6129 (Sathi means fully grown up and is ready for sale in the market within 60 days from the date of its plantation in the filed), but the OP No.1 gave the paddy seeds of quality Standard 5644, the other quality which the complainant requested to give. The OP No.1 further assured the complainant that this quality of paddy seeds 5644 is also of the same quality (Sathi) which will also  be  ready for its sale in the market within 60 days from plantation. And the complainant after believing the version of OP No.1 purchased four bags for plantation of the same in four acres of land, vide bill No.100 dated 10.05.2015 valuing Rs. 2800/-.

Also, the complainant has always been using the paddy seeds  of quality Swift or 6129 (Sathi) because after selling the paddy crops, he used to sow/plaint the potato crops in the same fields.  The complainant planted paddy crops in four acres of his land in time and as per the assurance given by the OPs, the paddy crops was to be harvested/ready for selling in the market within 60 days of its plantation, but after about 75 days, the paddy crops planted by the  the complainant was in the condition that it will take another one month, whereas the paddy crop of Swift/6129(Sathi) was planted by other farmer in the adjoining fields of the  complainant was fully ready/harvested and was ready for  its sale in the market.

Thereafter, the OP No.1 gave the paddy seeds to the complainant of poor quality intentionally only to put him in heavy fiscal loss as the complainant before purchasing the paddy seeds told the OP No.1 that the complainant is use to plant potato crops after harvesting the paddy crops of Swifts/6129, every  year as the complainant from the potato crops used to earn more than Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. The complainant planted the paddy crops in his four acres of land, in time after believing the versions of OPs that the complainant will get more money than the paddy crop of Swift/6129 (Sathi) but due to the wrong and false assurance of the OPs, the complainant has suffered   a heavy financial loss of Rs. 4,00,000/- and this all is happened due to negligence on the part of both the Ops who gave the paddy seeds of a very poor quality to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had already stored potato seeds and manure for plantation of potato crops to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- and now in last week of Aug, 2015, when the complainant revealed that the paddy crop will take another month, he requested the OP No.1 to look into the matter and to do the needful but the OP No.1 flatly refused to do any needful action, rather told the complainant that the OP no.2 is responsible for every legal complicacy and the OP No.1 is selling the product of OP No.2. The complainant got served legal notice registered A.D. dated 26.08.2015 upon the OPs but all fell on deaf ears.  In this way, the complainant has suffered a financial loss and mental harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Op no.2 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false & frivolous, no locus standi and  cause of action and the complainant had not come before the Court with clean hands. OP No.1 did not file separate reply and adopted the reply filed by the op no.2 on 24.12.2015. On merits, it has been submitted that OP no.1 is not an authorized dealer of answering OP. However, it is wrong  to allege that the answering OP has ever claimed that the after 60 days of the plantation of the said seeds, the crop will become ready to sell  in the market. OP No.2 never made assurance to the complainant. However, it is necessary to mention here that when complainant contacted the answering OP, then his field was visited and on visit, the answering OP saw that the complainant had already harvested his crop of paddy and he had got good yield and now he has planted crop of potato. Therefore, the complaint in hand is liable to be dismissed.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as annexure C-1 to C-6 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.1 has closed his evidence by way of  statement and counsel for OP No. 2 has tendered affidavit as Annexure RW2/A alongwith documents Mark ‘A-1’ to Mark ‘A-3’ and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the both the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is not disputed the complainant had purchased the paddy seeds no.5644 on the assurance of the OP no.1 that the above said seeds would grow within 60 days from the date of its plantation. The abovesaid seeds were planted  by the complainant in his four acres of the land but due to wrong and false assurance of the OP the abovesaid paddy seeds could not grow even after 75 days of its plantation and it will take another one month in its growing due to this reason the complainant could not sow the potato crops  which he was to sow after taking the crops of paddy seeds in time and therefore, he suffered a huge financial loss.

5.                To prove the abovesaid version, the complainant has to place on record whether there was any instructions, which shows that the paddy seeds  grow within 60 days of its plantation.  The complainant only have placed on record  photographs Annexure C-4 to C-6 of the paddy crops standing in his field. The photographs  do not prove the factum that the paddy seeds could not grow within specific time of 60 days of its plantation because it no where shows the date  and time of plantation of seeds allegedly purchased from OP No.1. Even otherwise, the complainant has not placed on record any literature  regarding the quality of paddy seeds no. 5644 to show that such type of paddy seeds grow within 60 days. Perusal of the case file further reveals that the complainant has not approached to Agricultural Department for inspection of his fields qua quality of such type of seeds i.e. no.5644 which was purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1 grow  within 60 days from its plantation.  He  has also not placed any affidavit  of any farmer who has planted the such type of seeds. It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to stand his own legs in order to prove his case without benefits of weakness of the other party. 

6.                In view of the above discussions, complainant has not able to prove his case with cogent evidence and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 Announced on : 28.11.2017                                                      (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

                   (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                      Member

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)

           Member

 

.