Punjab

Sangrur

CC/366/2014

BIKER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PROP., J.S. SIDHU - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. NANDPURI

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

               

                                               

                                                Complaint No.    366

                                                Instituted on:      07.07.2014

                                                Decided on:       24.02.2015

 

Biker Singh son of Haura Singh, resident of Village Ballian, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant.

                                Versus

J.S.Sidhu Seed Farm, Duggan, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur through its Prop.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Advocate.

For OP                      :       Shri Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Biker Singh complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased two bags of paddy seed of PUSA 44 from OP on 27.4.2013 for Rs.1400/- vide bill dated 27.4.2013. The complainant sowed the said seed in his 45 bighas of land and the complainant took all the precautions and directions for sowing the said seeds.  The grievance of the complainant is that the seeds did not give full yield as told by the OP, as each and every plant of the seed was not earing at the same time and due to defective seed supplied by the Op, the yield was less.  The complainant made the complaint to the OP and also the crop was shown to the respective villagers. The complainant also moved an application to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur regarding selling the defective seeds by the OP, who appointed Dr. Varinder Singh, Agricultural officer Sunam to visit and inspect the yield of complainant.  As per the report of Agricultural Officer, 20% crop has been damaged, as such, by this way the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.3,00,000/- due to the defective seed and different quality of seeds.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed material facts from this Forum.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased two bags of paddy seeds of PUSA-44 from the Op vide bill number 147 dated 27.4.2013. It has been denied that the complainant took all precautions and directions in sowing the said seeds in his fields measuring 45 bighas.  It has been denied that the complainant approached the OP regarding alleged less yield from the said seeds.  It is also denied that the complainant gave any application to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur  regarding the defective seeds. It is further denied that the Chief Agricultural Officer appointed Dr. Varinder Singh and he visited and inspected the alleged yield of the complainant, as the OP was never called for the same. It is denied that the complainant suffered any loss of Rs.3,00,000/- due to the OP.  It is further stated that the OP sold the said seed to various other farmers, but there is no complaint regarding the same.  It is further stated that the said seeds were got tested from the Seed Laboratory, Agricultural Department, Ludhiana and the said lab passed the seeds vide its report number 329 dated 12.2.2013.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of receipt dated 27.4.2013, Ex.C-2  to Ex.C-3copies of J forms, Ex.C-4 copy of order dated 17.4.2014, Ex.C-5 copy of form, Ex.C-6 note, Ex.C-7 copy of letter, Ex.C-8 copy of jamabandi,  and Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-10 affidavits and closed evidence.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-5 affidavits, Ex.OP-6 to Ex.OP-9 copies of bills, Ex.C-10 copy of report,  Ex.OP-11 copy of letter dated 29.1.2015, Ex.OP-12 copy of letter dated 28.1.2015 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and documents produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased PUSA-44 paddy seed two bags from the OP on 27.4.2013 vide bill, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-1.         

 

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant sowed the seeds purchased from the OP in his 45 bighas of land, but the seed supplied by the OP was defective which gave low yield.  As such, the complainant approached the Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur, who appointed Dr. Varinder Singh, Agricultural Officer to visit and inspect the yield of the complainant.  It is further contended that Dr. Varinder Singh, Agricultural Officer visited the fields and reported that yield per  5 x 5 meter of land was 16 Kg. 100 Grams, but he has mentioned nothing that what quantity of crop should be there in one acre of land.  In the present case, it is on the record that there was a produce of  about 26 quintal of paddy per acre.  In the circumstances, we are unable to accept such a contention of the complainant that there was less yield of paddy.  More so when, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that how much produce per acre should be there.   

 

 

7.             We have carefully perused the copy of letter dated 8 October, 2013, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-7 wherein it has been stated that Shri Varinder Singh visited in the fields of the complainant on 27.09.2013 for inspection of the crop, who reported that 20% of the crop has riped whereas the remaining crop was standing green.  In the end of the letter it has also been stated that after cutting of crop, exact produce be intimated to Shri Varinder Singh, Agricultural Officer.  But, there is nothing on record that what was the exact quantity of produce of the crop in question belonging to the complainant.   Further if the produce of the crop is less to the tune of 20%  the same can be due to so many reasons on the part of the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced any report of laboratory to show that the seeds were of defective quality.  Mere saying that 20% of the crop was damaged due to defective seeds, we are unable to accept such a contention in the absence of any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence in the shape of report by the approved laboratory.    Further the Ops have produced affidavits Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 of Shri Balwinder Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Harwinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh, respectively, which clearly shows that they also purchased the paddy seeds PUSA-44 from the OP and they received good yield/produce from the said seeds and the seeds were of good quality.  The seeds in question were also certified by the Seed Investigation Officer, Ludhiana, as is evident from the copy of report dated 12.2.1023, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-10.  Further the complainant has not produced on record any documentary evidence to show that what should be the actual produce from the paddy seeds in question.  The learned counsel for the OP has cited National Seeds Corporation Ltd. versus Mohanlal and others 2010(3) CPC 535 (MP State Commission), wherein the germination of soyabean was 20% to 30% less and the District Forum allowed the complaint.   In the appeal , the Hon’ble State Commission held that mere non germination of the seed cannot lead to presumption that seed was defective. Seeds certified by the statutory agency.  Some evidence should have been adduced to the extent that the seeds were defective and the yield thereof. It was further held that no deficiency in service has been proved and held that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.   The learned counsel for the OP has further contended that the complainant has not got  tested the seeds from any approved laboratory as prescribed under section 13(1)( c ) of the Consumer Protection Act. The same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds. Co. Ltd. versus Parchuri Narayan 2009(1) CPC 471 (NC).    Since in the present case also, the seeds in question have not been got tested from the approved laboratory as prescribed under section 13(1)( c ).  As such, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case by producing any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to show that the seeds in question were defective one.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 24, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

               

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member