Punjab

Sangrur

CC/398/2015

Dharamvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajinder Parshad - Opp.Party(s)

Shri P.L. Bansal

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  398

                                                Instituted on:    03.06.2015

                                                Decided on:       26.02.2016

 

Dharamvir Singh son of Amrik Singh, resident of H.No.285, Ward No.22, Khadial Road, Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.     M/s. Satpal Rajinder Parshad through its proprietor Santosh Kumar, Old Grain Market, Sunam.

2.     Santosh Kumar son of Satpal sole proprietor of M/s. Satpal Rajinder Parshad, Old Grain Market, Sunam.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Rajat Bansal, Advocate.

For OPs                    :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Dharamvir Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is an illiterate agriculturist and on 22.11.2014, he approached the Ops for the purchase of seeds of peas and told the OPs that he requires the seeds of peas for cultivation purpose, as such, the OPs apprised to purchase peas seeds which would produce 10/12 grain in each fruit of peas and further the OPs shown the bag of Kohinoor seeds G.S.-10 displaying the photo on the bag of fruit of peas having 10/12 grain. It is further averred that the complainant was assured that the said seeds of Kohinoor GS 10 are of very good quality and having the same result, as such the complainant purchased 6 bags of Kohinoor GS 10 of 5 Kg. each i.e. 30 KG. of Rs.3750/- i.e. Rs.115/- per kg. vide invoice number 2804 dated 22.11.2014. It is further averred that the complainant sown the said seeds in his land situated at Jawandha Road, Sunam measuring 1-3/4 acres of land which he had taken on lease @ Rs.42000/- per acre. It is further averred that in the month of February, the plants of peas started to grow and the fruit of peas was containing only ¾ grain, as such the complainant approached the OPs and told that the fruits of the peas are not bearing 10/12 grains, as assured, but nothing was done.  The complainant also approached the Development Officer Horticulture Sunam, who visited the fields of the complainant on 4.3.2015 and submitted the report by mentioning that the said bags of seeds of GS 10- are not recommended by the Punjab Agriculture University.   It is further averred that due to the OPs, nobody is there in the market to purchase the poor quality of the peas and as such, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,75,000/- due to the fault of the Ops.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of loss suffered by the complainant and further claimed compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not arrayed the manufacturer/producer as a party in this case. It is stated that the Ops have no concern with the manufacturing or packing of seeds purchased by the complainant. It is stated that the Ops had purchased the seeds from Kirpal Seeds Company, A-721, Main Bazar, Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi-7. It is stated that if the seeds were of not the good quality, then the manufacturer is liable for the same and the Ops have no concern at all and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the seeds of peas from Santosh Kumar vide invoice number 2804 dated 22.3.2014 and the Ops had purchased the said seeds from Kirpal Seeds Company, Delhi. It is denied that the complainant ever gave any assurance about the produce. It is further denied that the complainant had taken the land on lease. It is further stated that in one acre of land 30 to 40 kg of peas seeds are required to be sown and the complainant has filed the present complaint only to get compensation. It is further averred that for sowing 1-3/4 acres of land, 52 to 58 kg. seeds of peas are required, whereas the complainant had only purchased 30 kg. of seeds. It has been stated that there are many factors which effects the yield of the crop like climatic conditions, soil, temperature, water and use of fertilizers etc. so it cannot be said that if yield of the crop is not extent to the normal production, seeds were of inferior quality.  It has been stated further that no notice was ever given by the Development Officer, Horticulture Sunam to the Ops before his visit to the fields of the complainant, therefore, his report is not binding at all upon the Ops. It has been denied that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.1,75,000/- due to the Ops and any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of letter dated 24.3.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of agreement year 2014-15, Ex.C-4 copy of bill, Ex.C-5 copy of letter, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 certified copies of photographs, Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 original bags of seeds, Ex.C-11 report of Zimidara Pesticides and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of sale bill dated 22.3.2014, Ex.OP1&2/4 copy of purchase bill dated 10.10.2014 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and 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 between the parties that the complainant had purchased the Kohinoor seeds of 30 Kg for Rs.3750/- @ Rs.115/- per kilogram vide invoice number 2804 dated 22.03.2014, as is evident from the copy of the bill, which is on record as Ex.C-4. Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 are the empty bags which were allegedly containing the seeds of peas.  In the present case, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant had sown the said seeds in the land situated at Jawandha Road, Sunam measuring 1-3/4 acres, which he had taken on lease @ Rs.42000/- per acre, but his grievance is that in the month of February, the plants of peas were going and started to bear the fruit of peas, but the fruit of peas was containing only 3/4 grains against the assured 10/12 fruits, resulting that the complainant suffered a great loss due to less fruit on the peas crop. As such, it is contended further by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.1,75,000/- due to the fault of the OPs by supplying the defective seeds.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the OPs are not the manufacturer of the seeds, whereas the Ops had purchased the said seeds in sealed condition from M/s. Kirpal Seeds Company, Delhi, which has not been arrayed as a party by the complainant and further has contended that there are so many other factors which effects the yield of the crop like climatic conditions, soil, temperature, water and use of fertilizers etc, as such, it cannot be said that if yield of the crop is not extent to the normal production, then the seeds were of inferior quality.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that one acre of land 30 to 40 Kgs of peas seeds are required to be sown, whereas the complainant had sown only 30 kgs. of seeds in 1-3/4 acres of land, whereas the peas seeds were required to be 52-58 Kg. of seeds.  As such, it is denied by the learned counsel for the OPs that the seeds were of defective quality.

 

6.             After carefully perusing the case file and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the OPs cannot be said to be deficient in service by supplying the defective seeds to the complainant. 

 

7.             First of all, there is no explanation from the side of the complainant that despite the fact that the Ops took such an objection in their written reply why he did not array the manufacturer of the seeds i.e. Kirpal Seeds Company, Delhi, who sold the seeds in packing and sealed condition to the OPs.  It is not the case of the complainant that the seeds were in open condition.  It is worth mentioning here that the Ops had purchased the said seeds from Kirpal Seeds Company, Delhi-7 vide bill number 884 dated 10.10.2014, as is evident from the copy of invoice, which is on record as Ex.OP1&2/3. Further we have also perused the report of the Deputy Director, Horticulture Sangrur, which is on record as Ex.C-2, wherein he has clearly mentioned that there is no mention of the kind of seed in the bill and has further stated that on the blank packets, there is mention of the seeds as to be of GS-10 quality, which has not been recommended by the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana.  But, this fact is not proved on record that the complainant had sown the same seed in the fields as mentioned in the report.  Further, there is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not join the OPs at the time of inspection of the fields of the complainant and why the Ops were not called to remain present at the time of inspection, as such, we feel that this report is not helpful to the case of the complainant.  Further there is no report on record of any laboratory to establish that the seeds were of defective quality, due to which there was less yield.  It is the own admitted case of the complainant that after sowing the seeds, the plants of peas were growing and in the month of February, it started to bear the fruits of peas, but the fruits were only 3/4 grain instead of 10/12 grain as assured by the Ops.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also produced Ex.C-11 a report of M/s. Zimidara Pesticides, wherein it has been stated that the average produce of the peas crop is about 50 to 60 quintals per acre.  But, we are unable to accept such a report as it has not been issued by any expert of agriculture, more so when it is issued by only a shopkeeper. It is further worth mentioning here that even this report of Zimidara Pesticides does not contain the complete address of issuing authority i.e. place or city.    It is worth mentioning here that there are many other facts which affects the yield of the crop like climatic conditions, soil, temperature, water and use of fertilizers etc., as such, it cannot be said that the seeds were of defective quality, more so when once the seeds had grown in his fields, as admitted by the complainant himself in his case.  Further the complainant has contended that he suffered loss due to less yield of peas crop, but we are unable to accept such a contention as discussed above as the yield of crop depends upon various factors. Moreover,  the price of the peas depends upon day to day market conditions i.e.  on supply and demand conditions.   The learned counsel for the OPs has also contended that the onus of proving that the seeds were of inferior quality was on the complainant.  The same view has also been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in Harbhajan Singh versus Jhandu Kay Coop. Agri. Service Society 2015(4) CLT 72 (NC).  As such, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to the effect that the peas seeds supplied by the OPs to the complainant were of defective quality.                                                    

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. 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 26, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member