Haryana

Ambala

CC/82/2014

GULZAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARKASH BEEJ BHANDER - Opp.Party(s)

Mehar Singh

22 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 82of 2014                                                                              Date of                                                                                       Institution         : 18.03.2014

                                                          Date of decision   : 22.08.2017

 

 

          Gulzar Singh Son of Sh. Raja Ram resident of Village Ghasitpur, Post     office- Kuldeep Nagar, Teh and Distt. Ambala.   

 

……. Complainant.

 

 

1. Parkash Beej Bhandar, Purani Subzi Mandi, Ambala Cantt through its proprietor Joginder Khurana.
2. The Seeways Agri Seeds Private Limited, Sector-3, Packet-B, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 through its Manager.

 

….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

 

Present:       Sh. Mehar Singh, counsel for complainant.

                   OPs already proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 30.01.2017.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased radish seeds from OP NO.1 in the sum of Rs.500/-kg on 11.09.2013 and the complainant sown the same seeds in his land after preparing the field by putting minerals and pesticides and spent Rs.20,000/- on cultivation and development of the field and crop but due to the defective and inferior quality of seeds did not grow well and the colour was also red instead of white as assured by the OP which caused heavy losses. Further submitted that the seed was defective and duplicate which did not given required result and the colour of the radish was green and red above soil level which is of inferior quality and heavy loss was caused which fetched Rs.8 to 9 through per acre. Further submitted that this was reported to the OP NO.1 but he did not give any proper reply nor he visited the field for inspection then the matter was reported to the Distt. Horticulture officer who inspected the field and prepared the report vide No. 2260 dt. 03.12.2013. Further submitted that the complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.1 lac due to inferior quality of seeds. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement submitting that the germination and proper yield is based on various factors and the complainant had never intimated OPs regarding the defect in the seeds. Further submitted that there is no any proof regarding the loss of the complainant on record, moreover it is pertinent to mentioned here that neither the field was inspected, intimated to agricultural department nor the samples of standing crops or seeds were sent to laboratory for finding the actual reason of the loss. So, Ops has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-5 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Ops did not bother with the present case after filing of reply and they were proceeded against exparte v.o.d.30.01.2017.

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

5.                Counsel for complainant argued that the seed in question was defective and inferior quality. To prove his case, Report of Agriculture Department (Annexure-3) was relied upon which is as under:

          1       ewyh dh Qly dh fctkbZ gYdh pjks ij dh gqbZ FkhA fdlku ds dgs vuqlkj Qly dh fctkbZ 13-09-2013 dks dh xbZ FkhA

          2       ewyh dh Qly ds if’pe o mRrj fn’kk esa xktj dh Qly yxh gqbZ FkhA iwoZ fn’kk esa [kkyh [ksr Fkk RkFkk nf{k.k fn’kk esa xUus dh Qly Qly yxh gqbZ FkhA

          3                 Qly dh c<okj esa dksbZ deh ugh FkhA tMks dk feVVh ls mij okyk fgLlk gjs jax dk FkkA tks fd fdLe ij fuHkZj djrk gSA dqN fdLeksa esa tMks dk feVVh ls mij xok fgLlk gjs jax dk gks tkrk gS rFkk dqN esa ugh gksrk

          4                 D;ksfd tMks dk gjk jax gksus ls mudk xq.kork ij foijhr izHkko iMrk gSA vRk fdlku dks cktkj esa mudk mfpr Hkko ugh feyrk gS. ftlls vkfFkZd uqdlku gksuk r; gSaA

          5                 cht dh iSafdc ij ,d txg lhMost dEiuh fy[kk gqvk Fkk o ,d txg ij lhost ,xzh lhMl izkbZosV fyfefVaM fy[kk gqvk FkkA

          6                 iSfdx ij fdLe dk uke yksV ua0 o yscy ugh fy[kk gqvk FkkA

                    Counsel for complainant further argued that due to supplying of inferior quality of seeds, complainant suffered a financially loss and  requested for allowing the present complaint.

5.                After hearing counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the file, it is not proved on the file that he has taken two acres of land on lease from Om Parkash. In order to prove his possession being cultivator, the complainant has placed on record copy of Jamabandi Annexure C-5 in which clearly mentioned that Om Parkash was the owner up to 1/6 share of the total land measuring 10 kanal 5 marlas. Meaning thereby he was only owner of 1/6 share and not the owner of the whole land. Perusal of the file clearly shows that neither the complainant filed any affidavit to prove his ownership on the alleged land nor placed on file any documents to show that he has sown radish in two acres of land by taking same on lease. The complainant has placed on record report of Agriculture Officer, Haryana Annexure C-3 in order to show that  he has suffered loss on account of defective/inferior quality seeds but said report does not indicate that the alleged loss had occurred due to inferior/defective quality of seeds. Further in the report Annexure C-3, the Inspecting Team had also not specifically mentioned the area in which the complainant had allegedly sown the radish after purchasing its seed from the OP No.1. Moreover, this report also does not show as to what extent the complainant had suffered loss on account of damage to the crop. The report of Agriculture department on which the complainant is heavily relied cannot be read into evidence being incomplete. So, there is no value of the report of Agriculture Department in the eye of law.  The complainant has failed to prove his case as there is no credible evidence on record to substantiate averments contained in the complaint that seed sold to the complainant was sub-standard or of poor quality and defective. In the present case, OPs are exparte but 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.  Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission title as Banadeshwar Agro Agencies & ors Vs. Shivarudrappa (dead) through Lrs. & ors. 2011 (1) CLT Pg. 616 and case title Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. Narsi  264 (NC) (Nov.) 2011 are not identical to facts of the present complaint.

7.              As a sequel to our above discussion, we are of considered opinion that complainant failed to prove his case in the absence of cogent evidence.  So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and same is hereby is                            dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on :22.08.2017                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member