Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/116/2009

Ram Naresh Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, Shiv Shakti Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Non, in person

18 Apr 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur

                             Complain Case No. - 116/2009.

Ram Naresh Mishra residence of village – Dumariya post- Harnahi through District-Muzaffarpur Presently PIR. Muzaffarpur ………………..complainants 

                                                                                  V/s

1.  Proprietor Shiv Shakti Traders station Road, Muzaffarpur …………………………………………………………………..Opposite parties.

 

Date of order- 18-04-2015

                                                                                                  Present.

1. Shri Govind Prasad Singh

                                                                                           President,

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

2.  Smt. Archana Singh- Member

        Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

 

Advocate for complainant – Non, in person

Advocate for opposite party- Shri -  Shambhu Prasad - advocate

 

Order

           

The complainant has filed this case on 10-11-2009 for recovery of  Rs. 32,240/- with 10 percent interest including the price of seed Rs. 240/-, cultivation cost Rs. 6,000/-, value of damage of crop Rs. 16,000/- , mental harassment Rs. 5,000/- and cost of the suit Rs. 5,000/-.

 The case of complainant appears from brief note that on 15-09-2009 he purchase seed of yellow mustard for Rs. 240 from the shop of opposite party which appears from photocopy of cash memo attach with the complaint petition which was not germinated and at the same time other seed of mustard which. It was purchased simultaneously from the said memo was germinated about 75 percent.  Both seeds were cultivated in one field and on same day when he came to opposite party and complained, the opposite party stated that due to heavy rain the crop may have not germinated although it was true that after cultivation of the seeds neither of a day the rain was fallen he requested to accompany him to visit the filed . Which was refused by the opposite party and he refuses his responsibility, as such he has filed the present case for above mention claim, his claim petition is supported by an affidavit. 

In this case opposite party appeared and filed his objection-cum written statement dated 25-05-2010 alleging there in that the case is not maintainable neither          by law nor on fact. The complainant has no any valid cause of action. The present case is malafide, only to harass the opposite party. the complainant  has not disclosed any deficiency service and defect in quality of article sold by the opposite party the allegation of  non growing has not been supported by any report of BAO of the block  authority of Panchayat Sachiv, Revanue clerk, nor any person in authority as such the present complaint is without jurisdiction. He has not given the particular of fertilizer  which he has used. He has not filed any soil tasting report. He has further alleged that the germination of seeds depends upon several factors and can vary in the same place of land, the quality of fertilizer, insecticide and moisture etc are effective majors.  The opposite party is dealing with the seeds from long time and he has never receive any complainant from any consumer. His shop has became a synonym for reliability. Some competitor have jealousy and they have got manage to file this false case. The complainant has never approach the opposite party and never complaint about in proper germination and he has never refuses to inspect the field of less germination.Tthe seed was with sealed packet there is no complain of tempering in the packet of seed. If any problem in germination found it must be on account of negligence and not compliance of require formalities. The claim of compensation is baseless, self contradictory and has not been corroborated by admissible evidences. On the aforesaid ground the opposite party has prayed to dismiss the case.

The complainant has filed petition attach with enquiry report, receipt of material and receipt of cultivation cost cultivated by tractor and prayed to do justice with him. At the same time opposite party has filed Xerox copy of form-VIII acknowledgment of having taken sample annexure-1, form-VI notice for taste analysis annexure-2A and 2B certificate of test or analysis by the analyst annexure-2C to2F from which it appears that the analyst find the germination of seeds taken from the shop of the opposite party  is satisfactory this all have done in the month of June, 2010 till December,2010.

The complainant has further submitted an affidavit dated 05-04-2012 of his person and submitted the two affidavits of Rampokar Choudhary and Ram Narayan Mishra dated 05-04-2012 support his case is true. No other evidences have not been produced by either of the parties.

Considering the fact circumstances allegation material available with the record it appear before us that admittedly the complainant has purchased the seed of Yellow mustard for Rs. 240/- and he cultivated but the seed was not germinated regarding the germination opposite party has submitted his allegations that  it depend upon several factors. In this regard firstly we would like to know that whether the seed was any guarantee for germination given or assured by the opposite party. In this regard nothing evidence has been produced by complainant only he has given a certificate of Mukhiya Panchayat  Samiti Member and block assistant  on the petition of complainant  and block agriculture officer from he want to get corroborated that the seed was not germinated and he has filed further cultivation cost certificate which has no meaning.  There was no any guarantee of germination. As per complaint petition the complainant has not even whisper that the opposite party has given him any guarantee. On the other hand the opposite party has filed the several certificate of seed inspector , seed tasting officer fertilizer  and pesticide. Which was collected from the shop of opposite party for tasting and analysis as sample from the period of June, 2010 and it was testified and reported by seed test officer that the seed have satisfactory germination, appear from anneture-1 to 2/F which goes to substantiate that the seed sold by the opposite party was having proper germination and disbelieve the allegations of complainant.

Considering the facts circumstances material available with the record we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case and his case is not legally and factually maintainable.

Accordingly the case and the same is dismissed with cost.

 

Member                                                                                 President.