Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/167/2019

Jagjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Thind Agriculture - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Bansal

29 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                   Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                 Smt.Harisha Mehta and Dr.K.S.Nirania, Members

                                                        Complaint Case No.167 of 2019.                                                     Date of Instt.: 24.04.2019.                                                                Date of Decision: 29.11.2023.

Jagjit Singh son of Tej Ram resident of near Durga Mandir, village Kishangarh Pharwahi, Kishangarh Urf Phanwahi District Mansa.

                                                                            ...Complainant

                                      Versus

M/s Thind Agriculture Store, Near Bus Stand Jakhal Mandi, District Fatehabad through its proprietor/manager.

                                                                                               ...Opposite party

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                 Sh.Pankaj Bansal, Advocate for complainant.                                 Sh.N.S.Malik, Advocate for Op.                                                       

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

1.                          The facts pertaining to this complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of land measuring 43 kanal 2 marla situated at village Pharwai District Mansa as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the complaint; that the complainant had purchased Karnal Seeds 212 (60 Kg.) for paddy crop from OP vide invoice dated 15.04.2018 for a sum of Rs.3000/-; that while selling the pesticide, Op had claimed it to be of good quality; that the complainant sowed  the seeds in his land as per the instructions given by the Op and further took care each and every aspect such as watering and putting manure on it; that after some days of plantation of paddy crop, it came to notice of the complainant that the plants were having less fruits/flowers and the same were also dry; that it all happened due to inferior quality of seeds; that the complainant intimated the Op and requested to make the loss good but to no avail, therefore, the complainant moved an application to Agriculture Department; that the officials of the department visited the spot and in their report dated 18.12.2018 concluded that the complainant would suffer 30 % loss  and it all happened due to sub-standard seeds.  The Op has neither redressed his grievance nor made the loss good. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          On notice, OP appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been mentioned that replying Op had given estimate dated 15.04.2018 amounting to Rs.3,000/- of paddy seed when the complainant showed his interest for the purchase of paddy seed of 212 karal and thereafter, the complainant has never approached to it; that the complainant has never purchased the paddy seeds from the Op, therefore, question of any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not arise at all; that the complainant has misused the estimate given to it by the answering OP; that the inspection report is wrong, illegal being not prepared as per the rules and regulations; that for getting the good yield many factors such as sowing time, water quality, soil physical conditions etc. played an important role, therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the Op. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

3.                          Both sides have filed their respective evidence on record. The complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C6 and Annexure C2/A, Annexure C2/B. No evidence has been led on behalf of the Op despite availing ample opportunities, therefore, its evidence was closed by the order of the Commission on 09.05.2023.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                          The complainant is mainly relied upon the inspection report Annexure C2A (Punjabi Version) duly translated in Hindi (Annexure C2/B) to prove his case being vital and crucial piece of evidence. In this very report, it is mentioned that the farmer/complainant had sown paddy crop in his land and has used 4 KG of seeds in one acre of land which is less as per the prescribed standard made by the Punjab Agriculture University qua the paddy crop, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that this report is not helpful to his case. The OP in its reply has specifically mentioned that it has only given estimate (Annexure C1) to the complainant and no seeds were purchased by him from the OP. The fact regarding issuance of estimate is also mentioned in the report Annexure C2A (Punjabi Version) duly translated in Hindi (Annexure C2/B) and even on the top of Annexure C1 it is clearly mentioned that this paper is only an estimate.  Moreover, in this report it has been mentioned that the seeds, allegedly purchased by the complainant, were of sub-standard quality It is worthwhile to mention here that the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Op as the poor quality of seeds were sold to the complainant by Op lies on the complainant but in the present complaint the complainant has come with bare allegations only without leading any substantive evidence  and it is settled law that the complainant has to stand on his own legs to prove his case without taking any benefits from the weaknesses of the other party by leading concrete and authentic evidence.

6.                          Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice, on part of the Op, so as to make it liable in this matter to any extent. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.  In the given circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of this Commission, for perusal of parties herein. Case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 29.11.2023

                                                                                               

      (K.S.Nirania)                     (Harisha Mehta)           (Rajbir Singh)                             Member                                  Member                            President