Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/125/2018

Amritpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Punjab Agro agency - Opp.Party(s)

R.S Chatrath

09 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                   Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                 Smt.Harisha Mehta and Dr.K.S.Nirania, Members

                                                        Complaint Case No.125 of 2018.                                                               Date of Instt.: 01.05.2018.                                                                         Date of Decision: 09.05.2023.

Amrit Pal son of Sh.Darshan Singh, resident of village Diwana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s Punjab Agro Agency, Railway Bridge, New Anajmandi Road, Tohana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad through its Proprietor/partner.
2. M/s Kurukshetra Agritech Private Limited Indri District Karnal through its Manager/ Proprietor/partner (GIVEN UP ON 14.06.2019)

                                                                                               ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                 Sh.R.S.Chatrath, Advocate for complainant.                                                      Sh.H.S.Toor, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                    Op No.2 has been given up on 14.06.2019. 

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

 

1.                          The facts pertaining to this complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession; that the complainant had   purchased 30 kgs. of paddy seeds (20 kgs of Pusa - 44 and 10 kgs of PR-114) from Op No.1, duly manufactured by Op no.2, for a consideration of Rs.1055/-  vide invoice No.6024 dated 06.05.2017; that the complainant had sown the seeds in question in his 5 acres of land on 08.05.2017; that on maturity of crop, the complainant came to know that  the matured crop was not of variety Pusa -44 and PR-114 rather it was looking like mixture of variety of  many seeds; that

on the application of the complainant, official of the Agriculture Department visited the fields of the complainant on 26.09.2017; that in the report, the officers had disclosed about two types of paddy plants, out of which fruits on 56 % plants had grown and fruits on 46 % were not matured; that the probable loss to the extent of 30 % to the farmer was also been opined; that after harvesting the crop, the complainant could not find the purchaser of the crop and he was compelled to sell the same on less price; that it all happened due to mixed and adulterated seeds; that the complainant requested the Ops to make the loss good, besides serving legal notice upon them, but to no effect. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                          On notice Op No.1 appeared and filed its reply whereas Op No.2 was given up by learned counsel for the complainant vide statement dated 14.06.2019.

3.                          In the W.S. filed on behalf of Op No.1, it has been averred, inter-alia, that this complaint is false and frivolous; that  complicated questions of law are involved in the matter in dispute, therefore, this Hon’ble Commission cannot decide the same in summarily manner; that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission; that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no expert evidence on the case file;  that the crop has already been harvested and sold by the complainant and there is no proof  such like J-Form, whether the complainant has suffered any loss or not; that the report of agriculture officers is fabricated as it does not show as to which of the plant was of this variety and other has grown from other variety;  that no notice has every been sent to the replying Op at the time of inspection of fields of the complainant; that the replying Op had purchased the seeds from Op No.2and further sold the same in sealed and intact manner; that the yield does not depend only on seeds only as other factors such as management of crop, water quality, irrigation pattern and sowing methodology also play an important role for growing any crop; that the complainant has no given any description of his land. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the compliant has been made.

4.                          Both sides have filed their respective evidence on record. The complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Annexure C1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C6. On the other hand, no evidence has been led on behalf of the appearing Op and the same was closed by the order of this Commission on 16.03.2021.

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

 6.               Admittedly, the complainant had purchased paddy seeds from OP No.1 as is depicted from Annexure C4. The fact about germination of the seeds, harvesting of crop as well as selling the crop in the market by the complainant is also not disputed.  The complainant has come with the plea that the seeds allegedly sold by the Op No.1 to him were not of the same variety which were allegedly purchased by him rather the seeds were of the mixture of different verities, therefore, he could not get the expected yield resulting into financial loss. Learned counsel for the complainant has also drew the attention of this Commission towards the inspection report Annexure C2 wherein the probable loss to the farmer has been shown upto 30 %.

7.                The complainant in para No.2 of the complaint has mentioned that he had purchased two types of paddy seeds and further sown the same at different places in his land and the concerned officers in report Annexure C2 have also opined that there were two types of plants but this report does not mention that it all happened due to mixture of different varieties of seeds, therefore, this report is of no help to the complainant. The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, 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 and mere pleadings without any sound evidence carry no value in the eyes of law. The complainant has even not placed on file J-Form on the case file to support his allegations that as to on what rate his crops were sold in the market.

8.                          The Op No.1 in his reply has specifically mentioned that he had purchased the seeds in question from Op No.2 and further sold the same to the complainant in sealed and intact manner. On one hand, the complainant has levelled allegations of mixing as well as adulteration of seeds, due to which he could not get the expected yield, and on the other hand he has given up the Op No.2 in the present complaint. In order to resolve the controversy, the reply as well as evidence to be submitted by the Op No.2, had he not been given up by the complainant, could have been vital, therefore, at this stage the complainant cannot raise the plea of adulteration as well as mixing of different varieties of seeds. Learned counsel for the Op No.1 has further argued that Op No.1 being a dealer of Op No.2 cannot be held liable for any manufacturing defect/adulteration of the product as the paddy seeds were sold in the sealed and intact manner. In support of his contentions he has relied upon case laws titled as Manager Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Lted. Versus Leela Sahu & Anr. 2017 (2) CPR 524 (NC) and Classic Automobiles Versus Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC).

9.                          Undisputedly, the Op No.1 is only a dealer and being a dealer no liability can be fastened upon it, if the seeds are found adulterated and defective. Since the complainant himself has levelled allegations of adulteration as well as mixing of seeds, therefore, dealer cannot be held liable for any kind of manufacturing defect in the seeds. The case laws titled as Manager Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Lted. Versus Leela Sahu & Anr.  (supra) and Classic Automobiles Versus Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the Op No.1 are fully applicable to the case in hand, therefore, Op No.1 cannot be held liable for any defect/adulteration in the seeds duly manufactured by Op No.2. Moreover, learned counsel for the complainant himself has given up Op No.2, manufacturer of the seeds, on 14.06.2019, therefore, on the case file no other party is left against whom any order/direction could be given.

10.                        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 appearing 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.                                                            Dated: 09.05.2023

 

                                                                                                        

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