Haryana

StateCommission

A/183/2016

TIRLOK CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIRANKARI SEEDS AND CHEMICALS - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY KAMBOJ

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     183 of 2016

Date of Institution:     01.03.2016

Date of Decision :     29.03.2016

 

1. Tirlok Chand
2. Mithu Ram

Sons Lachhman Dass, Resident of Village Rajpura Majra, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.

                                      Appellants/Complainants

Versus

 

1.      M/s Nirankari Seeds and Chemicals Main Bazar Mandi Dabwali through its proprietor/partner/manager/Incharge/Authorised person/responsible person.

2.      Nirankari Agro Seeds Shiv Nagar Road, Mandi Dabwali through its proprietor/ partner/ Manager/ Incharge/ Authorised person/ responsible person.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Varun Sharma, Advocate proxy for Shri Paramjit Singh Jammu, counsel for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Tirlok Chand and Mithu Ram-Complainants, are in appeal against the order dated January 29^th, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      It is the case of the appellants/complainants that they had purchased 140 Kgs paddy seed of P-1509 variety from M/s Nirankari Seeds and Chemicals-Opposite Party No.1, on March 10^th, 2014 vide bill No.3250 (Exhibit C-9) for Rs.11,900/-.  It was assured by the opposite parties that the produce of the crop would be between 25-30 quintals per acre and harvest time was 100 days, but the yield was only of 6 quintals per acre and the crop ripened after 160 days. In support, reliance has been placed upon the report dated September 02^nd, 2014(Exhibit C-10), which was allegedly prepared by officials of Agriculture Department after inspecting the fields of the complainants.

3.      A perusal of the report (Exhibit C-10) shows that it was based on presumption. The crop was also compared with the crop of other farmers namely Sohan Lal and Vijay Singh.  It was stated that the crop was already harvested and sold in the market, which in opinion of this Commission could not have been there because the variety of P-1509 paddy is not possible to mature on September 02^nd, 2014 when the fields of the complainants and other farmers were inspected by the Agriculture Officials.  It was also stated in the report that one of the bag purported to have been purchased by the complainants from the opposite parties was not having any tag/label and thus, it was presumed that fraud was played by the opposite parties with the complainants.  This report itself is vague.  So, on the basis of this report, it cannot be said from any angle that seed provided by the opposite parties was adulterated. The complainants also failed to prove that the yield was six quintal per acre as alleged in the complaint. 

4.      In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

 

Announced 29.03.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL