Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/256/2010

Amrit S/o Ramdiya - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ramesh Chand - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Kamboj

20 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                             Complaint No. 256   of 2010.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 23.03.2010    

                                                                                             Date of decision: 20.05.2016.

Amrit son of Sh. Ramdiya resident of village Ledi, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ...Complainant

                                    Versus

 

1. M/s Ramesh Chand Arun Kumar Dealer in Fertilizer, Bilaspur, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor Sh. Ramesh Chand, since deceased now represented by his legal heirs:-

1. Arun Kumar
2. Sanjeev Kumar

2. Punjab Seed Company, 54, 111rd Industrial Area, Sirsa through its Managing Director.     

 

                                                                                                                                             …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. R.K.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              OPs already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss suffered by him due to supplying the sub standard mis branded wheat seed to the complainant.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant had to grow wheat in his fields and for that he visited the shop of OP No.1 who advised him to sow wheat seed of Mark 711, and assured the complainant that the said brand gives 30-31 quintal yield per acre and the same is of best quality. Therefore, believing upon the assurance and advise of Op No.1 the complainant purchased 7 bags of wheat seed mark 711 for a sum of Rs. 5250/-, vide receipt/bill No.24 dated 09.11.2009. Thereafter the complainant sown the abovesaid wheat by following all the instructions verified by the OP No.1 and planted 7 acres of the wheat from the abovesaid seed. When the wheat crop was ready to harvest, he was shocked by seeing that the said wheat seed supplied by Op No.1 is a mixture of different varieties. The complainant made a complaint to the OP No.1 only gave false assurances, that the matter shall be reported to Op No.2 and complainant shall be compensated in this regard but the OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. On account of supply of substandard seed of wheat, the production as well as the rate of produced shall be affected, the complainant has spent more than Rs. 55,000/- per acre for preparation of the wheat crop and furthermore, the complainant suffer on account of less production due to mix variety the yield shall be reduced up to 12 quintal per acre and the rate shall be reduced from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 500/- and on this account the complainant shall suffer more than Rs. 4,00,000/- besides mental agony and physical harassment.  Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 failed to appear despite service, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 4.10.2010 and 3.11.2015 respectively.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Bill No. 24 dated 9.11.2009 as Annexure C-1, Local Commissioner report as Annexure C-2 & C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, however none appeared on behalf of OPs, and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.

6.                     It is not disputed that complainant had purchased 7 bags of 40 Kgs. each seeds of wheat from the OP No.1 vide Bill No. 24 dated 09.11.2009 and paid Rs. 5250/-. The contention of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality and that was having mixture of seed of different variety and to prove his contention he moved an application for appointment of Local Commissioner and our Predecessor directed the Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar to depute any Agriculture Development Officer, Chhachhruali to inspect the field of complainant. Thus, the Agriculture Development Officer, Chhachhrauli made the report Annexure C-2 & C-3 mentioning therein that the wheat seed was of sub-standard quality and approximately 30% seed of different variety of the wheat was sold to the complainant.

7.                     The only version of the complainant is that the OPs supplied the mixture seed of wheat of different variety and due to that the production as well as the rate of the produce was effected and in this way complainant has suffered huge financial loss which constitute the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and draw out attention towards the report of local commissioner appointed by this Forum vide its order dated 23.03.2010 Annexure C-2 and C-3 and also referred the purchased bill dated 9.11.2009 as Annexure C-1.

8.                      Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Annexure C-2 and C-3 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Annexure C-3) it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by only Agriculture Development Officer, Chhachhrauli without getting the land identified from any official of the revenue department prior to spot inspection as no Killa Number or Khasra number has been mentioned in the report and as such it cannot be said with certainty as to which field the inspection report in question pertains. Even, before inspection of the field of the complainant, no notice has been issued to the representative of the Ops neither any respectable person from the locality i.e. Lumberdar, Panch, Sarpanch or Revenue Patwari and neighbourer of the field has been joined before inspecting the field of the complainant. Furthermore, the report in question is also silent in respect of criteria adopted by the said Agriculture Development Officer, Chhachhrauli. Except the report of said Agriculture Officer Chhachhrauli (Annexure C-3), no cogent evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove his case. Mere filing of the copy of bill it cannot be held that complainant might have suffered any financial loss. The said Agriculture Development Officer has mentioned in his report that there was 30% different variety of the seed but he has not disclosed the name of that varieties. It means, he does not know about the quality of the wheat in question and in the absence of particular variety of the seeds it cannot be said that there was any mixing in the seed in question and further without getting it tested from the appropriate laboratory it cannot be said that the seed in question was of sub-standard quality. However, the said Agriculture Development Officer has not mentioned in his report that the farmer/complainant has suffered any financial loss. No sample was drawn from the field of the complainant and was sent to the laboratory for testing the same whereas it is mandatory under section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced here as under:

Where the complainant alleged defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or the test of goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, still it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and referred the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory alongwith a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, which ever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its finding thereof to the District Forum within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.

9.                     Further, the said Agriculture Development Officer, Chhachhrauli has also not followed the instructions issued by the Director issued by Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department Panchkula, vide memo No. 52-70 dated 3.1.2002 TA/SS in which it has been mentioned that when there is a complaint by a farmer regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kendre. In the present case, the said instructions had not been followed by the said Agriculture Development Officer while giving the present report (Annexure C-3). Factum of the complainant have been suffered loss due to sub standard quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or any other evidence. Hence, the report of the Local Commissioner (Annexure C-3) is not reflecting the true facts and have no weightage in the eye of law.  The same view has been held in case titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, IV (2013) CPJ page 186 National Commission, it has been held that Agriculture-Defective Seed-Growth of crop not satisfactory-Loss suffered-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed the complaint- State Commission accepted appeal and dismissed the complaint- Hence revision- When there is complaint by the farmers regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kender- Said inspection had not been followed by the Agriculture Department while giving their report- Factum of the complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or other evidence- No illegality or irregularity in impugned order. Revision dismissed.

10.                   Further reliance on this point can be taken from the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies 2007 (2) CLT page 683 and Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others 2013 Volume 2 page 616 National Commission wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that petitioner had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under provision of section 13(1)( C ) of the Consumer Protection Act  1986- He had also not moved an application before the concerned authority for getting seed of the same batch, number, tested from any laboratory- report of agriculture department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection- Inferior quality of seed not proved.

11.                   Apart from above noted facts, complainant has also failed to file any revenue record i.e. Fard Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari showing his ownership and cultivation of land or filed any documentary evidence to prove that he has cultivated any land after taking from any other person on lease or any other way. So, after going through the above noted discussion and law we are of the considered view that the report Annexure C-2&3 has no value in the eyes of law.

12.                   Though in the present complaint, the OPs have neither filed written statement nor defended the case but it does not give any right to the complainant to take the benefit of this, as it is well settled law that the complainant is to stand on its own legs, without taking the weakness of the opposite parties.

13.                   Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs, therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 20.05.2016.                      

                                                                              ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                              (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                               MEMBER