Haryana

Jind

50/14

Vikas - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Redhu Beej Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manoj Kumar

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 50 of 2014

   Date of Institution: 14.5.2014

   Date of final order:5.2.2015

Vikas s/o Sh. Dharambir s/o Sh. Surat Singh r/o village Hoshiarpura, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.  

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. M/s Redhu Beej Bhandar shop No.1 new grain market, Pillu Khera Mandi, Tehsil Safidon,District Jind through its Prop/partner.
2. Diamond Seed, 1 KM stone, Bhiwani road, Hansi District Hisar through its proprietor/authorized signatory.
3. Director of Extension Education C.C.S. H.A.U. Hisar.
4. Deputy Director Agriculture,Jind, District Jind.
5. Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Safidon, District Jind.

                                                         …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member

                              

Present: Sh. M.K. Redhu Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. G.D. Goswami Adv. for opposite party No.1.

             Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.2.

             Sh. Manjeet Singh Adv. for opposite party No.3.

             Sh. Anil Kumar, APPO for opposite party No.4.

             Sh. Satyawan SDAO for opposite party No.5.

 

ORDER:

 

            The brief facts in the complaint are that  the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and  had purchased 7 bags of  variety HD-2967 Diamond Wheat seeds @ Rs.1300/- per bag against a sum of Rs.9100 on 7.11.2013 from opposite party No.1, which is manufactured by opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.1 did not issue the bill on the same day rather it was issued bill No.1577 dated 15.12.2013 to the complainant. The print rate of above seed on its bag

                        Vikas Vs. Redhu Beej etc.

                                …2…

was Rs.1200/- per bag whereas the opposite party No.1 charged Rs.1300/- per bag from him i.e. Rs.100/- per bag excess. In this way the opposite party No.1 has charged Rs.700/- more than its printed rate. At the time of purchase of seed, the opposite party No.1 gave assurance that seed is approved and standard quality. The complainant  sown the seeds in his six acres of land. After seeing the culture of his crop observed that the seeds sold by the opposite party No.1 is not of HD-2967 variety rather it pertains to some other variety of wheat. The complainant moved an application dated 10.2.2014 to S.D.A.O. Safidon for inspection of his field  and further requesting for taking legal action against opposite party No.1 for charging excess rate of wheat seed than its print rates. Thereafter, the opposite party No.5 inspected the field of complainant on 13.2.2014 and vide his letter dated 7.3.2014 showed their inability that departmental team is not eligible and capable to conduct test of seeds sown and recommended seeds variety test from team of experts of Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. Thereafter, the complainant informed the Deputy Director Agriculture, Jind in this regard and requested him to get tested the variety of what seeds from a team of Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. The opposite party No.4 vide his letter memo dated 21.3.2014 requested the opposite party No.3 to send a team of seed expert to ascertain the variety of sown wheat seed in the fields. The HAU has not inspected the field of the complainant. The complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 several times and requested to   compensate him but the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,75,700/- for loss

 

                        Vikas Vs. Redhu Beej etc.

                                …3…

suffered in the wheat crops as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have  put in appearance and filed the  separate written statement. Opposite party No.1 has contending in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is contended that he has sold the 7 bags of wheat seed @ Rs. 1200/- per bag but unfortunately the bill was issued @Rs.1300/- per bag but he has seen the said rate of bag then correct the bill @Rs.1200/- per bag within a one hour upon which the complainant has signed himself.  The wheat seed is of good quality and not even a singal complaint to this effect was received  from any person. The answering opposite party is not at fault as the seed sold to the complainant is of good variety and there is no report issued by any Govt. authority i.e. HAU Hissar as well as Dy. Director Agriculture Department, Jind who are competent to check the variety/quality of seed to this effect.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of  answering opposite party . Dismissal of complaint  is prayed for.

3.     Opposite party No.2 has contended that the complainant has not filed the copy of jamabandi and girdawari on record to establish that the complainant has cultivated and sown wheat seed in his 6 acres of land. The answering opposite party produce a good variety approved wheat seed HD2967 and there is no complaint of any kind from any one else. As per state Govt. specification the inspecting team must be comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned Seed Agency and one Scientists of

 

                        Vikas Vs. Redhu Beej etc.

                                …4…

KGK/KVK/HAU, but in the present case the above instructions of the Govt. has not been followed. So the report, if any, produced by the complainant is not correct and not binding on the rights of the answering opposite party. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with special costs is prayed for.

4.     Opposite party No.3 has contended that the answering opposite party has no information regarding inspection of field and he has not received any information or letter from opposite party No.4 in this complaint. The answering opposite party has no any equipment or laboratory to ascertain the variety of any seed of any field.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.

5.     Opposite party No.4 has contended that the committee submitted the report to SDAO Safidon then report was given to the complainant and submit to DDA, Jind. The SDAO, Safidon stated that the complained is true but he is not competent to identify the seed variety because it is the work of seed breeder and request that the matter was sent to expert CCS HAU, Hissar. Thereafter, DDA Jind sent the request to CCS HAU Hissar expert to identify the  above wheat seed variety in the field of complainant.

6.     Opposite party No.5 has contended that the answering opposite party deputed three officers of agriculture department working under his control for inspection of field of complainant and to report regarding the crop condition and also to report regarding variation of amount charges from complainant by opposite party No.1. The team of opposite party No.5 inspected the field of the complainant on 13.2.2014 and they have submitted their report to the answering

 

                        Vikas Vs. Redhu Beej etc.

                                …5…

 opposite party, in which they have clearly mentioned about the existing condition of the crop and they have requested the authority of Agriculture Department to provide the concerned Scientist/specialist for identification of particular variety of wheat seed. It is further contended in the report that opposite party No.1 has charged Rs.100/- extra per bag in the print rate of bag to the complainant. All the other

allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.

7.     In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, cash memo Ex. C-2, copy of application Ex. C-3,  copies of inspection report Ex. C-4 and C-5 and copy of letter dated 7.4.2014 Ex. C-6  and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the copies of letters and reminder Ex. OP-1 to OP-4, affidavit of Satyawan Ex. OP-5, affidavit of Dr. R.D. Kaushik Ex. OP-6, copy of document Ex. OP-7, affidavit of Baldev Kumar Ex. OP-8, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex. OP-9 and affidavit of Ashok Kumar Ex. OP-10 and closed the evidence.

8.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file.  The complainant had purchased 7 bags of HD-2967 diamond wheat seeds @ Rs.1300/- per bag for a sum of Rs.9100/- on 7.11.2013 from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 is manufacturer. The opposite party No.1 did not issue the bill on the same day rather the bill No.1577 issued on 15.12.2013 Ex. C-1. The print rate of above seed on its bag was Rs.1200/- per bag whereas the opposite party No.1 charged Rs.1300/- per bag from the complainant and in this way, the opposite party No.1

 

                        Vikas Vs. Redhu Beej etc.

                                …6…

has charged Rs.700/- more than its printed rates. At the time of purchase of above wheat seed, the opposite party No.1 has given full guarantee to the complainant that said seed is approved and standard quality seed and it will gave yield of 24 quintal per acre. The complainant sown the above said seed in 6 acres of agriculture land but the complainant was found the wheat crop is other than HD-2967 variety. The complainant moved an application to the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Safidon i.e. opposite party No.5 for taking legal action against the opposite party No.1 for charging excess rate of wheat seed from the complainant then its print rate and to get ascertained the variety of wheat seed. On 13.2.2014 the opposite party No.5 inspected the field of the complainant and vide letter No.401 dated 7.3.2014 he sought their inability that  departmental team is not eligible and capable to conduct tests of seeds sown and recommended seeds variety test from team of experts of Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar. After that the complainant informed the Deputy Director Agriculture, Jind i.e. opposite party No.4 in this regard. The opposite party No.4 vide his letter memo dated 21.3.2014 requested the opposite party No.3 to send a team of seed expert to ascertain the variety of sown wheat seed in the field of complainant. But the opposite party No.3 has not inspected the field of the complainant. The opposite party No.5 investigated the complaint of the complainant about excess rate charging by opposite party No.1 and has given his report on 7.3.2014. In the report, the opposite party No.5 had clearly mentioned that opposite party No.1 had charged excess rate than the printed rate. No team of Haryana Agriculture University inspected the field of complainant to ascertain the wheat variety. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged.

 

                        Vikas Vs. Redhu Beej etc.

                                …7…

9.     On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has admitted that the complainant had purchased 7 bags of wheat seed but unfortunately the bill was issued @ Rs.1300/- per bag i.e. Rs.9100/- but when the opposite party No.1 saw the said rate of bag then issued the correct bill @ Rs.1200/- per bag i.e. Rs.8400/- within a one hour and the complainant has signed himself. The seed was of good quality and not even a single complaint to this effect was received from any person. The opposite party No.2 has averred that the complainant has not submitted any copy of jamabandi and girdwari to establish that the complainant has cultivated and sown wheat seed in his 6 acres of land. The answering opposite party purchased a good variety approved wheat seed HD-2967 and there is no complaint of any kind from any one else. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. The opposite party No.3 has averred that the answering opposite party has no information regarding inspection of field and the answering opposite party has not received any information or letter from opposite party No.4. The answering opposite party has no equipment or laboratory to ascertain the variety of any seed of any kind. The opposite party No.4 has averred that the S.D.A. O., Safidon said that the  complaint of complainant is true but he is not competent to identify the seed variety because it is the work of seed breeder and request that the matter was sent to expert HAU, Hissar. The opposite party No.5 has averred that the  expert team of  Agriculture Department inspected the field of complainant on 13.2.2014 and submitted their report, in which they have clearly mentioned about the existing condition of the crop and they have requested the authority of agriculture department to provide the concerned scientist/ specialist for identification of particular variety of wheat seed.  As regard to the

 

                        Vikas Vs. Redhu Beej etc.

                                …8…

charging of excess amount the then the print rates, the answering opposite party found after investigation that  the opposite party No.1  has charged Rs.100/-  excess amount then its printed rate from the complainant.

10.    The enquiry report of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Safidon is Ex.C-4 and notice to Deputy Director, Jind Ex. OP-1. It is proved that the opposite party No.1 charged Rs.1300/-  per bag from the complainant whereas the print rate of its bag was Rs.1200/- per bag. The report of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Safidon cannot be ignored lightly. It carries presumption of truth and the opposite party No.1 has also admitted this fact in his written statement.

11.    In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the opposite party No.1 charged excess amount then its printed rate from the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and an act indulging unfair trade practice by the opposite party No.1. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.2100/- as litigation charges. This order be complied within 30 days after receiving the certified copy of this order. Parties will bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 5.2.2015

                                                                President,

Member                                   District Consumer Disputes                                                                Redressal Forum, Jind