Haryana

StateCommission

A/987/2015

PRINCE NEHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM BEEJ BHANDAR - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.CHHOKAR

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.987 of 2015

Date of Institution: 06.11.2015

 & 18.11.2015

Date of Decision: 10.12.2015

 

Prince Nehra S/o Sh.Isham Singh R/o Topra Kalan, Block Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

1. Prem Beej Bhandar, Radaur Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra through its Proprietor.
2. Welcome Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. SSI, 30, Near GTK Bus Depot, Small Scale Co-UP, Industrial Estate, G.T.Karnal Road, Delhi through its proprietor.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.S.S.Chhokar, Advocate for the appellant.

ORDER

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

1.      Prince Nehra-complainant is in appeal for enhancement of the amount as awarded vide order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ( for short “District Forum”), Kurukshetra, whereby it was directed to the Opposite Parties (O.Ps.) to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

2.      Sh.Prince Nehra-Consumer/appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Kurukshetra that the complainant purchased the brinjal seeds for a sum of Rs.1050/- for his fields and the respondents gave guarantee of 100% germination.  The complainant planted in his field and the same was grown up, but, the seed was having serious defects and genetic problems and that is why the brinjal did not grow up the plants.  The complainant approached the District Horticulture Officer, Yamuna Nagar and he inspected the plants and told that the seed is of poor quality and some genetic problem is in it and he prepare his report dated 10.11.2014.

3.      According to O.P.No.1, the report alleged to have been prepared by the officials of the Agriculture Department is totally false and incorrect as at the time of alleged inspection of the fields of the complainant, no notice was served upon O.P.No.1 and he was never informed to reach at the spot and the Patwari was not called to show the land.  Further, it was pleaded by the O.P.No.1 that even in the said report of the District Horticulture Officer, it has been clearly opined that in a field where Poplar and Eucalyptus trees had been planted, the seeds of Brinjal should not be sown; meaning thereby that if such seeds were sown in the fields of Poplar and Eucalyptus, the growth of the Brinjal Plants would not be up to the expectation.

4.      Despite all this, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint by awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  Considering this amount as inadequate, the complainant has come in Appeal before us for the enhancement of this amount.

5.      After hearing the learned counsel and have been perused the record, we are satisfied that the view taken by the learned District Forum is legally correct and the compensation awarded is wholly adequate.   As per report of Agriculture  (Department) Expert Committee germination and growth is proper and besides there was growth of wild vegetation and  there was also  a plantation of poplar and Euclyptus trees.  For growth,  proper sunlight and ventilation are necessary, so there was no defect in the seeds. The complainant is sufficiently compensated by the District forum.

6.      Hence, in view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not find any ground for enhancement of the amount already awarded to the complainant.  Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

 

December 10th, 2015 Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                   Member                                                Judicial Member                                             Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.

 

 

The report of the District Horticulture Officer is quite elaborate and convincing according to which the seeds used by the complainant were not sub standard in any way and the variation to the growth and germination of the crops not only depend upon the quality of the pesticide, but on many other factors also i.e. soil, proper watering and cultivation at a proper time etc.  Therefore, the onus of proving that insufficient growth of the crops was due to inferior quality of seeds or defects in the seeds was on the complainant, which he has failed to discharge.