Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/133/2022

Bakhtawar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, Krishna Seed Store - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Kumar Dagar

05 Dec 2023

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                                                          Complaint No.: 133 of 2022.

                                                         Date of Institution: 24.05.2022.

                                                          Date of Decision: 05.12.2023.

Bakhtawar Singh aged 67 years S/o Ch Chhalu Ram, R/o Village  Samaspur, Tehsil & Distt. Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                   ….Complainant.

         

                                      Versus

1.       Krishna Beej Bhandar, Bus Stand, Samaspur, Tehsil & Distt. Charkhi Dadri through  its proprietor.

2.       Deepak Seeds Pvt. Ltd, 321 Dediyasan, GIDC, Mehsana-384002 (Gujrat) through Director/authorized signatory.  

                                                                    …...Opposite Parties.

 

                                                COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 35 OF

                                                THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: -  Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal,President

                Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Amit Kumar Dagar,Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Manoj Kumar, Adv. for OP no.1&2.

 

ORDER:-

1.                The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had sown mustard crop in 3 acre land taken on lease from Dharmpal S/o Chandgi Ram and Krishna Devi widow of Ranvir S/o Lal ji R/o Village Samaspur. The complainant had cultivated mustard crop for which purchased three bags of mustard seeds vide bill no. 432 dated 21.10.2021 for Rs. 1950/-.  It is alleged that the OP no.1 had given full assurance   that the mustard seed is of very good quality and the complainant would get good yield and huge profit. After sowing the seeds, the complainant used good quality fertilizer and watered it from time to time but the mustard crop did not give the yield as assured by OP. Complainant submitted an application to the officials of the agriculture department to inspect his crop, on which on 21.03.2022, the employee from the Agriculture Department came to inspect the fields who had clearly recorded in their report that these crops have not been damaged due to any other reason but the seeds sown in the fields were bad, rather there is a loss of about 80 to 85 per cent of the entire crop. It shows that seeds sold by the OPs were defective and of sub standard quality and the complainant has suffered loss of production of mustard at large.  It is further alleged that the complainant has grown mustard crop in 3 acre of land which should produce @ 12 quintals in 1 acre land total to 36 quintals of mustard. But due to bad seeds, the yield was only 1 quintal in one acre land  against envisaged production  of 36 quintals of mustard  for value of about Rs. 2,52,000/- (36 quintals X 7,000/- = Rs. 2,52,000/-). But due to damaged seeds, 85% loss was occurred. The complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- from the OP, the seed seller. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has filed the present complaint.

2.                On notice, the OPs have appeared and filed written statement denying all the allegations of the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant has not mentioned the quare/killa number of the land in which he allegedly sowed the mustard seeds purchased from OP no.1 and has also not given the details about the kind/nature of soil, facilities of irrigation etc. It is further alleged that complainant got inspected his field from the officers of Agriculture Department, who visited at the spot, but OPs were not given any notice of alleged inspection.  Further, there is no report of any laboratory for inferior quality of mustard seed. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                Complainant has placed on record the affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C7 in evidence and closed the evidence vide order dt.24.11.2022.

4.                Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence vide order dt.17.05.2023 

5.                We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant had purchased three packets of DHM-8519  (Mustard Seeds) from OP No.1 as is depicted in Ex. C5. The complainant has come with the plea that the seeds allegedly sold by Op No.1 to him was of poor quality as due to its use his crop got damaged resulting into huge financial loss to him and in support of his he drew the attention of this Commission towards the Inspection Report Ex.C6.

As per inspection report,

i.   the pods formed in the crop are small and weak and the number of grains is from 1 to 3 which is a sign of seed spoilage.

ii.   apart from the main crop of mustard, about 50 plants of other kind are grown which    have pods with full of grains. This is an indication that the crop has not been damaged due to any other reason, but the seed is defective.

iii. There is a possibility of 80 to 85 % loss in the crop.

iv. Three acre of crop was inspected.

The description of land on which mustard was sown has not been given in the inspection report.

7.                   On the other hand, the OPs have come with the plea that the seed was of superior quality and they have not given any assurance  for production of mustard from the seed sold to the complainant and they have given affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A in support of their statement.

8.                    The OPs have submitted that the complainant is mainly relied upon the Inspection Report Ex. C6 to prove the allegation qua poor quality of seeds but this report reveals that the Inspecting Officer has not mentioned the killa number, khewat number , which they had inspected at the spot. It also reveals that no prior notice before inspection was ever served to the OPs before visiting at the spot, therefore, we have no hitch to say that this report is not complete to establish that there was loss of production of  mustard crops  on the land cultivated  by the complainant by using the same seed purchased from OP. Document Ex.R1 contains directions sent by ASPO for Director of Agriculture, Haryana to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture to show that  in the inspection committee two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientists of KGK/KVK, HAU and report will be submitted  to this office immediately after inspection. The directions have not been complied with as no representative of OPs was associated in inspection.

9.                The complainant has not produced any laboratory test report from any agency regarding the defective quality of seed as alleged by him.  In the absence of laboratory test report it cannot be inferred that the seed was of inferior quality. 

10.                      Further, the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs as the poor quality of seeds were sold to the complainant by Ops, lies on the complainant but in the present complaint the complainant has come with bare allegations without lab test report and any substantive evidence  and it is settled law that the complainant has to stand on his own legs to prove his case by leading concrete and authentic evidence. The inspection report submitted by the complainant does not contain description  of the land which was inspected  and the representatives of OPs were not associated  during the inspection  as mandatory in terms of  Memo No. 52-70/TA(SS) Dated, PKL the 3.1.2002 issued  by  A.S.P.O. for Director of Agriculture, Haryana.  

11.                          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 OPs, 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. Case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated: - 05.12.2023