DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 235 of 9.6.2016

                                      Decided on: 2.2.2021

Harpal Singh, Lambardar s/o Sh.Bachan Singh R/o Shambu Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Raju c/o Vishal Beej Company,2105, Sapatu Road, Ambala City (Haryana)
2. Managing Director of Known-U Seeds (India) Pvt. Ltd. No.87, Pimple-Jagtap Road Bhima, Koregaon, Tal.Shirur, District Pune-412216.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.M.S.Attli,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.P.S.Walia,counsel for OPs No.1&2.     

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by  Harpal Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Raju and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s)
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that on 21.2.2016 he took 8 killas of land from one Surjit Singh of village Lohgarh and also took 8 killas of land from one Raja resident of Shambhu Kalan on contract @ Rs.30,000/- per killa.
3. It is averred that on 21.2.2016 the complainant purchased seeds of muskmelon measuring 150 gms for Rs.7500/-, seeds of watermelon weighing  ½ kg for Rs.20,000/-  and the seeds of watermelon weighing ½ kg for Rs.20,000/-.It is averred that OP No.1 issued cash memo No.6269 in the name of Jatinder Singh son of the complainant and another cash memo No.6268 for Rs.20,000/- in the name of complainant. At the time of purchase of the said seeds, it was assured that production of the said crops would be 300 to 400 quintals per acre.
4. It is further averred that the complainant sown seeds of watermelon and muskmelon in 4 killas of land. On 24.2.2016 the complainant again purchased seeds for Rs.600/- vide cash memo 6281 dated 24.2.2016 .It is averred that after passing of 65 days, the complainant felt that there was no production of the above said crops and there was hardly production of 50 quintal per killa. Complainant contacted OP No.1 and brought the whole facts in its knowledge who advised the complainant to spray medicine upon the said crops .The complainant purchased medicines of Rs.4000/- from OP No.1 and sprayed upon the crops but of no avail as the OP No.1 has supplied defective seeds to the complainant. The complainant contacted OP no.1 number of times but he put  the matter off on one pretext or the other. It is averred that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.10lac due to defective seeds supplied by OPs which caused mental tension to him. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to pay Rs.10lac alongwith interest @24% per annum from the date of purchase of seeds and Rs.15000/-as costs of litigation.
5. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written replies.
6. In the written reply filed by OP No.1 preliminary objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
7. On merits, it is admitted that the seeds were sold to the complainant vide cash memo Nos. 6268 and 6269. It is submitted that all the seeds supplied were sealed packets duly manufactured and supplied by OP No.2 .There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments, the OP no.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In the written reply filed by OP No.2 preliminary objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the averments of the complaint are fictitious, imaginary and unsubstantiated.
9. On merits ,it is submitted that all the seeds are regularly tested in the factory by all concerned agencies at every stage and then sealed packets duly manufactured by OP No.2 are supplied to the retailers for sale. The sealed packets of seeds sold to the complainant are tested and approved by various Govt. agencies before resale. The seeds from the same lot numbers were sold to other farmers in the area and there has been no complaint from the farmers since they were fully satisfied with the yield . There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments the complainant prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
10. In evidence the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C28 and closed the evidence.
11. The ld. counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Raju Ex.OPA, affidavit of Basant Malik, Ex.OPB and closed the evidence.
12. We  have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
13. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has taken 8 killas of land from Surjit Singh of village Lohgarh @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. The ld. counsel further argued that complainant wanted to sow watermelon and muskmelon  in the land. In this regard he purchased seeds of Rs.7500/-.The ld. counsel further argued that OP disclosed him that he will get heavy yield crops from the seeds but the complainant found that there was less yield of the crops from the seeds supplied by OPs and thus the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.10lac.So the complaint be allowed  and be paid Rs.10lac as compensation.
14. The ld. counsel for the OPs argued that there is no expert evidence on the file produced by the complainant to prove that he has suffered loss of Rs.10lac.The ld. counsel further argued that it is also not proved that whether he has taken land on lease from the land owner. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no evidence whatsoever on the file lead by the complainant to prove that he had suffered loss of Rs.10lac.So the complaint be dismissed.
15. To prove this complaint, complainant has tendered affidavit,Ex.CA of Harpal Singh and he has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the receipt vide which the complainant purchased seeds for Rs.600/-,Ex.C2 is the receipt of Rs.20,000/-for the purchase of seeds,Ex.C3 is the receipt vide which seeds were purchased of Rs.7500/-,Ex.C4 is the receipt of Raja Singh and Money Singh that they have given the land on contract to Harpal Singh @ Rs.30,000/-per acre, Ex.C5 is the legal notice,Exs.C6 and C7 are the postal receipts,Ex.C8 to Ex.C16 are the phorographs,Exs.C17 to C21 are the receipts of vegetable commission agent, Ex.C22 is the receipt of Market Committee, Ambala and Ex.C28 is the copy of Aadhar card.
16. To rebut the evidence of the complainant Raju has tendered affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per his written statement. Ex.OPB is the affidavit of Basant Malik.
17. As per the complaint, the complainant bought seeds of muskmelon and watermelon from the OP No.1 vide Exs.C1 to C3 and the OP assured him that he will get bumper crops from both of these seeds. The complainant has stated that he sown the seeds but the yield was not up to the mark and the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.10lac  due to supply of  defective seeds by the OPs.
18. Onus was lying heavily on the complainant to prove that he has suffered loss of Rs.10lac due to defective seeds but there is no evidence on the file to prove the contention of the complainant. There is no expert evidence on the file to prove that he has suffered loss of Rs.10lac.Only the complainant has tendered the receipts vide which he purchased the seeds, legal notice, photographs and record of market committee Ambala. In the end he has also attached the receipts to prove that he had sold both these crops. Even otherwise also it is not proved that he had sown these crops in the land belonging to Raja Singh and Money Singh as no copy of jamabandi & girdawari has been produced to prove that Raja Singh and Money Singh were the owners of the land. So this is very important evidence which the complainant has failed to prove on record. No khasra number and khautni number have been mentioned by the complainant to prove that he has sown these crops in these khasra and khautni number. The complainant has attached the photographs but these photographs are not helpful to the complainant as it is not proved that these photographs belong to the fields where these seeds were sown.
19. So due to our above discussion, it is not proved that the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.10lac as he has not given any details regarding the loss suffered by him. So the complaint is without merit and is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.           

ANNOUNCED

DATED:2.2.2021         

                                    Y.S.Matta                           Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President