DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                   Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                

Smt.Harisha Mehta and Dr.K.S.Nirania, Members

                                                        Complaint Case No.166 of 2019.                                                   

  Date of Instt.: 09.12.2019                                                                 Date of Decision: 02.05.2024.

Mehar Singh son of Balwant Singh resident of village Majra Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.M/s Pranami Chemicals Bhirdana Wale, Shop No.69-B, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

2.Faim Seeds (India) Head Office 7-8 Sewak Sabha Hospital, Building Hisar, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

3.M/s Sahil Pesticides  & Fertilisers, near Khushi Ram Permanent Petrol Pump G.T.Road, Fatehabad.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                 Sh.N.S.Malik, Advocate for complainant.                                       Sh.V.K.Mehta, Advocate for Op No.1.                                              Ops No.2 & 3 exparte VOD 22.03.2021 & 04.07.22.

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

1.                          The facts pertaining to this complaint are that the complainant was in cultivating possession of the land as mentioned in para No.2 of the complaint after taking it on lease from their respective owners;   that the complainant purchased seeds of paddy (variety 1401) from OP No.1 on 14.05.2019 vide bill No.713; that thereafter the complainant planted the same in his fields but thereafter he came to know that the fruits developed on the seeds were not of variety 1401; that the complainant had looked after the crop by giving proper manure, water and other recommended things the Op No.1 had not given the seeds of variety 1401 and even that seeds were of inferior quality, therefore, his crop got spoiled; that the complainant moved an application to Agriculture Department and on the basis of this the concerned officials visited the spot opined that the crops were at the maturing stage  but the same appears to be of variety PB1 and not of 1401; that the officials in their report further opined that the complainant would suffer 50 % loss in 7 acres and 20-25 % in 4 acres of land; that it all happened due to unfair dealing of Op No.1. The complainant requested the Ops to make the loss good but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          On notice, only OP No.1 appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been mentioned that  the present matter cannot be decided in summary manner because the crop depends apart from the seeds, quality, upon agro climatic condition, time of sowing, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients and effective use of fertilizers besides proper germination of seeds; that the complainant had purchased 3 packets of 10 kg each and sown in 11 acres of land whereas as per instructions 8 kg seed of paddy is required in one acre so for 11 acre land the seed was required 88 kg but the complainant had sown 30 kg seed in 11 acre which is very less and not as per the requirement as per the instructions ; that the seeds allegedly sold by the Op No.1 to the complainant was genuine and actual variety of 1401 and even the seeds were of superior quality, therefore, question of any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not arise at all; that the inspection report is wrong, illegal being not prepared as per the rules and regulations. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made. Ops No.2 & 3 did not appear before this Commission, therefore, these Ops were declared exprte vide orders dated 22.03.2021 & 04.07.22.

3.                          The complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C11 whereas Op No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A with documents Annexure RW1/1 to Annexure RW1/3.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                          The complainant is mainly relied upon the inspection report Annexure C2 to prove his case being vital and crucial piece of evidence. In this very report, it is mentioned that the farmer/complainant had sown paddy crop in his land measuring 11 acres after purchasing the seeds from OP No.1. Further perusal of this report reveals that concerned authorities had opined that the complainant would suffer 50 % loss in 7 acres and 20-25 % in 4 acres of land.  Undisputedly, the complainant had purchased 3 packets of seeds and the bill from whom the Op No.1 had purchased the seeds in question reveals that one packet was of 10 KG, therefore, it is clear that the complainant had purchased 30 KG of seeds and the same were sown in 11 acres of land.  In bill Ex.C1, the batch No. of the alleged seed is mentioned FS-003 and the same batch No. is mentioned in another document Annexure C3 i.e. Truthful label and this batch No. is also mentioned in the bill issued by Op N.3 in favour of Op No.1. Moreover , the batch No. Learned counsel for the Op No.1 has produced on record literature to show that 8 KG seed was required for one acre and the complainant has sown less quantity as per the prescribed standard made by the Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University qua the paddy crop, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that this report is not helpful to his case as the complainant himself had sown the  seeds which were actually sufficient for 3-4 acres. Moreover, in this report it has been mentioned that the seeds, allegedly purchased by the complainant, were of sub-standard quality It is worthwhile to mention here that the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Op as the poor quality of seeds/other than the seeds of variety 1401 were sold to the complainant by Op lies on the complainant but in the present complaint the complainant has come with bare allegations only without leading any substantive evidence  and it is settled law that the complainant has to stand on his own legs to prove his case without taking any benefits from the weaknesses of the other party by leading concrete and authentic evidence.

6.                          Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice, on part of the Op, so as to make it liable in this matter to any extent. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.  In the given circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of this Commission, for perusal of parties herein. Case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated02.05.2024

      (K.S.Nirania)                     (Harisha Mehta)           (Rajbir Singh)                             Member                                  Member                            President