BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.197/17.
Date of instt.:25.07.2017.
Date of Decision:16.10.2018
Jogi Ram s/o Shri Dhari Ram, r/o VPO Jakholi, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s New Haryana Kissan Seva Kender, Jind Road, Kaithal.
- Model Agritech India Ltd., Reasulpur, Indiri District Karnal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Jagmal Singh, President.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Kabir Dhall, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased 10 packets of paddy seeds IX Lg variety PB1509 C/S Model Seed from the OPs for a sum of Rs.600/- vide Invoice No.3758 dt. 16.5.2017. It is further alleged that he sown the paddy 1509 PB crops in 2 acres of his agriculture land. It is further alleged that the plants have not grown properly and instead of giving flower of crops the plants given JHANDA TYPE flower and crops were not grown in the said two acres of land and his paddy crops destroyed. It is further alleged that he suffered loss of Rs.70,000/- due to defective seeds sold by the OPs. It is further alleged that he approached the OPs many times for fulfillment of his loss, but the OPs has not paid any heed to his requests. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of Sec. 13(i)(c) of CP Act, where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods, which cannot be determined without proper analysis or tests of the goods, the Distt. Forum shall obtain as sample of goods from the complainant, seal it and refer the goods to the appropriate laboratory for testing but in the present case, procedure has not been followed which is mandatory in nature; that the mandatory instructions of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana dt. 3.1.2002 has not been complied with, according to which the fields of the farmer are to be inspected by Committee comprising of two officers of the Agriculture Deptt. one representative of concerned agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and Ops, but the complainant has miserably failed to get his fields inspected by the expert committee and in absence of the same, it cannot be ascertained that the seed in question is defective or the complainant has suffered any loss due to the seed in question. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1, Mark C1 to Mark C4 and closed evidence on 21.12.2017. On the other hand, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Mark RA and closed evidence on 03.10.2018.
4. We have heard the complainant as well as the ld. counsel for the OPs and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, we found that it is not disputed that the complainant purchased 10 packets of paddy seeds variety PB1509 C/S Model from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.600/- vide Invoice No.3758 dt. 16.5.2017 Mark C-1.
6. The complainant argued that when he sown the said seeds in 2 acres of his agriculture land, the plants have not grown properly and instead of proper flowering, there was JHANDA TYPE flowers on the crops, so the crops were not grown in the said two acres. He further argued that he suffered loss of Rs.70,000/- due to defective seeds sold by the OPs.
7. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs argued that compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act, 1986 has not been made in the present case. He further argued that the inspection report of Committee Ex.C1 is not helpful in any manner to the complainant, because it has been specifically mentioned in the report that the crops was damaged by the disease Bakaane.
8. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the complainant relied upon the inspection report Ex.C-1 of Committee constituted by Agriculture Department, Kaithal. It has been specifically mentioned in the said report by the inspection committee that the Committee inspected two acres of paddy crops of the complainant in the presence of the complainant and found that in the above paddy crops, there was disease named ‘Bakaane’ and due to that, the plants of paddy were soaking up after growing in length. It is further reported that the team has inspected the field by Random formula in which they found that in 2 acres, 4 to 5% plants were soaking up after growing, due to which, there was an estimate of 4 to 5% loss to the complainant and the constituted team gave suggestions to the farmer regarding the fact that the disease may not increase further. So, from the above report Ex.C1, it is clear that the Committee has not mentioned in the said report regarding the fact that the seed in question was of sub-standard quality. The complainant has not produced any other cogent evidence vide which it can be proved that the seed in question was not upto the mark and the same was of sub-standard quality. The report Ex.C1 is not helpful to the complainant in any manner to prove that the seed in question was not of good quality. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove on the file that the seed purchased by him from the OPs was of poor quality. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs.
9. Thus, in view of above discussion and without going into any other controversy, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.16.10.2018.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Suman Rana). (Rajbir Singh).
Member. Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Kabir Dhall, Advocate for the OPs.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:16.10.2018. Member. Member. President.
