Present:      Shri Hritik Gupta, counsel for the appellant.

                    Shri Dinesh Maurya, counsel for respondent No.1.

                    Shri Gagandeep Singh, counsel for respondent No.2.

PER: T.P.S. MANN, J.  

ORDER

1. The complainant, namely, Krishan Lal (appellant herein) is in appeal against the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal, whereby the complaint filed by him was dismissed.
2. According to the complainant, he had purchased seven bags of paddy seeds (each containing 10 kgs.) of CSR 30 (Basmati) variety on 29.05.2019 vide cash memo No.716 for Rs.950/- each from M/s Shiv Shanker Seed Store-opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 i.e. Chaudhary Exports was the manufacturer of the said seeds. The complainant sowed the seed in total 17 acres of land and irrigated the same.  When the crop was at vegetative stage, it was found that the seed was of mixed variety. He thereafter complained to Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Karnal. Accordingly, a team consisting of Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer and Quality Control Inspector, Karnal was constituted, who inspected the fields of the complainant on 20.09.2019. The team gave its report on 09.10.2019 wherein it was reported that there were mixture of 6% plants of other variety found in the fields of the complainant. Hence, the complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their respective written versions denying the averments made by the complainant. Opposite party No.1 pleaded that it was not the manufacture of the said seeds. The alleged report of the Agriculture Department was a procured one by the complainant in connivance with the Agriculture Department and thus could not be relied upon.
4. Opposite party No.2 in its written version pleaded that the complainant as well as Agriculture Department never intimated it for inspection of the land of the complainant. However, as per letter dated 03.01.2002 issued by Director, Agriculture Haryana, the land of the complainant/farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK/HAU but in the present case neither any representative of the seed agency nor any scientist was called for inspection purposes. Further, it sold the seed of same variety to many other farmers of the same area also but there was no complaint made by even a single person except the complainant in this regard. There was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Parties to the lis led their respective evidence in support of their pleas.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the record, the District Consumer Commission found no merit in the complaint and dismissed the same. 
7. The State Commission has heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as documents attached with the appeal.
8. The only question for adjudication before this Commission is whether there was mixture of seeds of other variety in the bags purchased by the complainant or not. To prove the same, the complainant is only relying upon the report of Agriculture Department wherein it was observed that there was mixture of 6% plants of other variety found in the fields of the complainant. However, the allegation made by the complainant is based only on visual inspection and conjuncture. There is no material on record to show that the seeds/crops were ever sent for any scientific testing. Further, as per version of opposite party No.2 i.e. the manufacturer, same seeds were purchased by many other farmers but there was no complaint except the present complaint. Further, the complainant never approached the opposite parties in this regard and even the inspection by the team of Agricultural Department was done behind their back. The complainant also failed to examine any other farmer who may have also purchased the same variety seed from the opposite parties. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on file any such document from which it could be proved that how much loss he suffered. The report of inspection is not helpful to the complainant regarding the fact that the complainant has suffered any loss. Thus, no case is made for any interference in the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Commission. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, therefore, dismissed.
9. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
10. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the law. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
11. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.