Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/290

Gursewak Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Punjab Agro Agency - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Manpreet Singh

04 Jan 2016

ORDER

 Gursewak Singh vs Pb. Agro Agency CC/15/290

 

04/01/2016 Present: Sh. Manpreet Singh counsel for the complainant.

 

It is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased 20 Kgs of the seeds of PR-118 quality @ Rs.35/- per kg for Rs.700/- and 50 kg of seeds of PS-1401 Basmati @ Rs.70/- per kg for Rs.3500/- from OP no.1 vide bill no.407 dt.09/05/2015, in all for Rs.4200/-. The seeds were manufactured by OP no.2 as the bag of the seeds were stamped with the particulars of OP no.2.

The complainant had, after having prepared the seedlings, sown the same in an area measuring 11.5 acres. The complainant took proper care in the matter of replanting the seedlings. However when the variety of PS-1401 Basmati matured at the stage of harvesting, half of the crop was still found growing up and the same was due to the supply of sub standard quality of the seeds. The complainant could not harvest the crop as still half of the crop was growing/ blooming.

It is further averred by the complainant that he had taken the land measuring 11.5 acres on lease @ Rs.55000/- per acre.

The complainant approached the OP with a request to verify the crop at the spot, who after having visited the site assured to find some solution but they failed to do anything. They also failed to pay the damages to the complainant. Complainant got the OPs served with legal notice dt. 21/09/2015 but to no effect. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the OPs u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short the Act) seeking a compensation in a sum of Rs.12,65,000/- with interest.

It is no where alleged by the complainant as to from whom the complainant had got the land on lease. The complainant has produced on file only on 14/12/2015 i.e. much after the filling of the complaint, the two agreements dt.01/05/2015, one to have been executed by Mohinder Singh son of Mukand Singh and Mandev Singh son of Mohinder Singh with regard to their having leased out the land measuring 56 Kanal 16 Marla i.e. 1/4th share out of the land measuring 54 kanal 0 marla, 1/4th share of the land measuring 22 Kanal 16 marla, 1/4th share of the land measuring 21 kanal 4 marla, 1/4th share of the land measuring 71 kanal 7 marla, 1/4th share of the land measuring 3 kanal 8 marla, 1/4th share of the land measuring 31 kanal 8 marla, 1/4th share of the land measuring 7 kanal 16 marla etc. in favour of the complainant for the period 01/05/2015 to 30/04/2016 at the rate of Rs.55,000/- per acre, in all for Rs.3,90,500/- and the other agreement dt. 01/05/2015 to have been executed by one Jarnail Singh son of Sarup Singh and Satpal Singh son of Sarup Singh regarding the land measuring 36 kanal 0 marla out of 1/4th share of Sat pal Singh in the land measuring 81 kanal 7marla and out of 1/4th share of Jarnail Singh in the land measuring 20 kanal 6 marla for the period 01/05/2015 to 30/04/2016 @ Rs.55,000/- per acre in all for Rs.2,47,500/- in favour of the complainant.

The complainant has not produced on file any copy of the khasra girdhawri to show any land to have been got by him from said Sarvsh. Mohinder Singh, Mandev Singh, Jarnail Singh and Satpal Singh sown by him with the crop of Basmati. The complainant has also not produced any report to have obtained from Halqa Patwari to show any land to have sown by him, got by him on lease from the aforesaid persons in the area of Bhutgarh, Tehsil Patran. The complainant has simply produced the photographs of the crop of basmati which can not be connected with any land.

It is suffice to note that in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 produced on file by the complainant the land comprised of Khewat no.16/13 Khatauni no.74 and khewat no.45/40 Khatauni no.128,129, 130 and 131 Jora Singh son of Sarup Singh for 1/4^th share, Jarnail Singh son of Sarup Singh for 1/4^th share, Satpal Singh son of Sarup Singh for 1/4^th share, Balbir Singh son of Sarup Singh for 27/6508 share, Balwinder Singh son of Jit Singh for 560/4881 share, Mehar Singh son of Jit Singh for 560/4881 share and Kalyan Singh son of Jit Singh for 80/4881 share have been recorded to be the owner and the land is recorded to be in the possession of the co-owners. Similarly in the land bearing Khewat no.45/40 and Khatauni no. 128 to 131 Smt. Puna Devi widown of Jagrup Singh for 41/540 share, Hakam Singh son of Jagrup Singh for 47/270 share, Joginder Singh son of Mukand Singh for 1/4^th share and Mohinder Singh son of Mukand Singh for 1/4^th share and Sarup Singh son of Mukand Singh for 1/4^th share have been recorded to be the owners and this land pertains to the area installed with tubewells and is recorded to be in the possession of Mohinder Singh son of Mukand Singh regarding Khotuni no.128, Sarup Singh son of Mukand Singh regarding Khatauni no.129, Hakam Singh son of Jagrup Singh and Puna Devi widow of Jagrup Singh as tenant in respect of Khatauni no.130 and in possession of Sarup Singh son of Mukand Singh in respect of the land comprising of Khatauni no.131. Similar is the position of the other land comprising Khewat no.46/41 Khatauni no.132, Khewat no.110/102 Khatauni no.345 to 350 in which different owners are recorded and different co-sharers are recorded in possession. Similar is the position with regard to the land bearing khewat no.112/104 and Khatauni no.351, 352 and khewat no.115/107 and Khatauni no.356. We fail to understand as to how the complainant could get the possession of any part of the joint land owned and possessed by co-sharers.

Similarly the complainant has produced on file a report given by the Agriculture officer, Samana to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala with regard to the land measuring 11.5 acres to have been sown by the complainant with the crop of paddy having been mixed with the seeds of other variety to the extant of 10-15 % but again the said report does not state about the description of the land so as to connect the same with any land to have been got by the complainant on lease from the aforesaid persons. However it is mentioned in the said report dt.12/10/2015 that the correct information regarding the mixture of two varieties could be given by the breeder or some other authority, the particulars of which are not legible. Thus prima facie there is no evidence to show that there was any mixture of two varieties of seeds. As a matter of fact the complainant should have approached the Forum when the crop was growing at the stage of harvesting so that one or the other sample of the same could be sent to the concerned laboratory. Therefore, taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complainant has not been prima facie able to show that he had got any land on lease and the same was sown with any crop of Basmati or there was any mixture of two crops of paddy. Therefore complaint is hereby rejected. Copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 04/01/2016.

 

Neelam Gupta D. R. Arora

Member President