Haryana

Karnal

CC/209/2021

Rajpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sham Beej Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Chaudhary

03 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                       Complaint No. 209 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.07.04.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:03.01.2024

 

Rajpal Singh aged 47 years son of Mangal Singh, resident of Village Dabarkipar, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant

                                              Versus

 

M/s Sham Beej Bhandar, Opposite Bus Stand, Karnal, through its Proprietor.

                                                                      …..Opposite party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh…..……Member

          

 Argued by: None for the complainant.

                    Shri Kulwant Kadiyan, counsel for OP

 

                    (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

 

ORDER:   

 

                   Today the case was fixed for arguments on behalf of complainant, but neither anyone has appeared on behalf of complainant nor arguments advanced. It is pertinent to mention here that OP argued his case on 09.08.2023 and thereafter case was adjourned for arguments on behalf of complainant.  After that complainant has availed three effective opportunities to argue his case but he did not appear to argue his case. It appears that the complainant is no more interested to pursue his case. The present complaint pertains to the year 2021. Hence, we have no other option to decide the present complaint on merits.

2.             The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that the complainant was willing to plant carrot rose red in his field and contacted the OP and purchased seeds of carrot rose red  for an amount of Rs.2250/- vide invoice No.377 dated 21.10.2020. Complainant sown the carrot rose red seeds in his field but was not growing in the field. Thereafter, complainant approached District Horticulture Office, Karnal and the office of DHO gave its report, wherein they specifically shown the deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint. 

3.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has filed the present complaint with an ulterior motive to extract money from the OP. The complainants has not attached the empty pack of seed and nowhere mentioned kind/variety, label number, lot number, date of packing and validity of the seed. The germination of seed is depending upon so many factors like fertility, quality and preparation of land, mode of sowing of seed, atmosphere, environment and ability and qualification of the grower. The validity of the seed which was purchased by the complainant from the OP was upto April 2021. The other allegation made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Rajpal Singh Ex.C1/, copy of aadhar card Ex.C2, copy of notice Ex.C3, copy of receipt Ex.C4, copy of expert report Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant on 14.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mahender Kumar Proprietor Ex.RW1/A, copy of licence Ex.OP1, copy of bill Ex.OP2, copy of empty envelope Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP on 26.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant has purchased seed from the OP vide bill Ex.C4.

9.             The complainant has alleged in his complaint that he is a farmer and OP has sold the expiry date seed to him. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove his version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has also failed to place on file revenue record to prove that he is an agriculturist. Hence, it is not proved on the record that complainant is an agriculturist by profession.

10.           Complainant also alleged that the seed purchased from the OP was of expiry date.  The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove his version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on file to prove that the OP has sold the expiry date seed to him.

11.           The complainant of the complainant is based upon the report dated 03.03.2021, of District Horticulture Office, Karnal Ex.C5, which is reproduced as under:-

The carrot roots did not fully formed due to not sowing the crop at optimum time.

As per recommendations of Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, the optimum time of sowing of carrot is till September but you have sown the crop in the last week of October.

As per the bill seed was sold on 21.10.2020 which should not have given to the farmer.

12.           As per the said report the complainant has sown the seed in the wrong month i.e. in the last week of October whereas it should have been sown till September. It is a common knowledge of a farmer that what is exact timing of sowing of a seed but the complainant has not sown the seed at optimum time. It was the complainant who had sown the seed in time and OP cannot be blamed for that. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

13.           Thus, in view of the above, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 03.01.2024

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

-                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                    Member                         Member