Haryana

StateCommission

A/423/2015

KAVERI-III SEED CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJ KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT SINGLA

09 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      423 of 2015

Date of Institution:      06.05.2015

Date of Decision :       09.09.2015

 

1.     Kaveri-III Seed Company Limited Registered Office # 513, 5^th Floor, Minerva Complex, SD Road Sikendrabad (AP) through its Managing Director/Manager.

 

2.     Kaveri-III Seed Company Limited, Thuiyanwali Road Mansa, District Mansa (Punjab).

 

3.     M/s Bhaker Pesticides Shop No.68-69, Anaj Mandi, Bhattu Tehsil and District Fatehabad through its proprietor/partner firm.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Raj Kumar s/o Sh. Vijay Singh s/o Sh. Hardayal, Resident of Dhabi Khurd, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                      Respondent

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Amit Singla, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Ajit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated February 26^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Fatehabad.

2.      Raj Kumar-complainant-respondent, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he had purchased three bags Guar Seed of Kaveri-III Variety on June 15^th, 2013 for Rs.1800/- from M/s Bhaker Pesticides-Opposite Party No.1 (respondent No.3), vide receipt Annexure C-3. The seed was processed and prepared by Kaveri-III Seed Company Limited-opposite party No.2. He sowed the seed in 2¾ acres land. When the crop was at vegetative stage, it was found that the seed supplied to him was defective as the plants failed to bear appropriate Phalies (beans). He complained to the Agriculture Authorities, Fatehabad. Accordingly, a team of agriculture experts consisting of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Fatehabad; Subject Matter Specialist, Fatehabad and Block Agriculture Officer, Bhattu Kalan, inspected the fields of the complainant on October 4^th, 2013. The Agriculture Officials gave their report Annexure C-4, wherein it was observed that length of plants was 7’-8’. The plants were bearing some flowers and Phalies (beans).  There was loss of crop to the extent of 70-75%. Sample of Kaveri-III variety Guar seed could not be taken as the same was not available with M/s Bhaker Pesticides-opposite party No.1.

3.      The respondent-opposite party No.1 contested complaint by filing reply denying the averments made by the complainant. It was stated that the seed was processed and prepared by the opposite party No.2. The seed was purchased by it from the opposite party No.3 and the same was sold to the complainant intact in sealed packets.

4.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued direction to the appellants-opposite parties as under:-

“…….we accept the complaint of the complainant directing the Ops to pay compensation of Rs.75000/- in lump sum alongwith Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation expenses, harassment and mental agony which shall be paid by the Ops jointly and severally. The compliance of this order be made within a period of one month failing which it will carry interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.”

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties has argued that there is nothing on the record to show that the seed supplied to the complainant was defective. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the appellants for the loss of crop of the complainant.

6.      The contention raised is tenable. As per the report (Annexure C-4) of the agriculture officials, the growth of the plants was upto the height of 7’-8’. The report nowhere reflects that the seed supplied by the appellants to the complainant was defective.  It is not the case of the complainant that there was any kind of adulteration in the seed purchased by him from the opposite party No.1 nor there was any complaint of under germination. Mere allegations cannot take the shape of proof unless and until supported by cogent and convincing evidence.  Thus, no liability can be fastened upon the appellants for the loss of crop of the complainant. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint.

7.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 09.09.2015

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL