Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/295/2019

Man Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Satish Agriculture - Opp.Party(s)

Bijender Singh

11 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                  Complaint Case No. : 295 of 2019

                                                  Date of Institution    : 27.05.2019

                                                  Date of decision:      : 11.01.2024

 

Man Singh son of Sh. Itbari Lal R/o village Dhani Chang, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                        ...Complainant. 

                                                    Versus.

1. Satish Agriculture Store, Lohar Bazar, Bhiwani-127021 (Haryana).

 

2. 179, Shastri Anaj Mandi, Karnal, Haryana-132001.

 

3. Laxmi Boilers (North) 602, Deepali, 92, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

 

4. # 29 2^nd Floor, Nagarbhavi Main Road, Priyadarshni Layout, Mudalapalya, Bangalore-560 072, Karnataka, India.                                                    

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Balbir Singh, Adv. for complainant.

                    Sh. Sanesh Choudhary, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2.

OPs No.3 & 4 exparte.

 

                                                  ORDER:

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.                 Brief facts of the case present complaint are that complainant purchased 10 packets of sponge gourd (Tori) seed- Laxmi F1 LHS 0503 from OP No.1 in a sum of Rs.1800/- vide bill no.974 dated 08.04.2019. On this day, he also purchased cotton seed from the OP. As per complainant, OP No.1 is retailer of Ops No.2 & 3.  It is stated that complainant does contractual agriculture. The Tori seeds were sown in the fields but there was no flower and thus no production came out. So, complainant approached OP No.1 who suggested for doing a spray in the field which was done after purchasing it for Rs.8500/-, but the situation was as such. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and thereby caused him monetary loss as well as harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the Ops to pay Rs.3.00  lac as compensation alongwith interest @ 18% besides Rs.5500/- as litigation fee.

2.                 OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objection qua complainant is a consumer, jurisdiction, suppression of material facts and that complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that the instructions given the leaflet of the packet must have been complied with by the complainant to get the results. OPs No.1 & 2 never exclaimed with regard to production of tori and thus the OP is not liable for any such claim my by the complainant and the alleged assurance of production was never been done by the OPs.  The Ops have alleged that there is no inspection report on the case file qua defect in the seeds and thereby loss to the complainant. Rest of the material contents of complaint have been denied. As such, the OPs has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 OPs No. 3 & 4 did not appear despite notices to them, as such, they were proceeded against as exparte vide order dated 13.08.2019. 

4.                 Complainant in exparte evidence, filed his affidavit Annexure CW1/A and affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar as Annexure CW2/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-14 and closed the evidence.

5.                 No evidence produced on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2 rather learned counsel for these Ops made a statement on 21.08.2023 that written statement filed on their behalf may be read into their evidence.  

6.                 We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record minutely.  Complainant to prove his complaint has placed on record, purchase bill of the alleged seeds Annexure C-1, leaflet of the seed as Annexure C-2 and photographs of the fields qua the germination as Annexure C-3 to Annexure C-14. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that from the evidence produced on behalf of complainant, there was less germination due to defective seeds sold by the OPs to the complainant and thereby caused heavy loss and thus the Ops are liable to compensate the complainant as prayed for in the complaint.

7.                 On the other side, learned counsel for contesting OPs has argued that the seeds were of best quality and they sold it to the complainant in a sealed and packed manner but the complainant not used the seeds as per instructions for using the same on the leaflet. The counsel further argued that the loss, if any, has occurred to the complainant due to his own fault. The counsel has urged that they have sold the said seeds to many farmers but no complaint has yet been received from any of them except the complainant. Further, there is no report of agriculture department/expert person qua loss occurred to the complainant due to seeds sold by Ops. Further, no officer of agriculture department has been summoned to authenticate the loss caused to the complainant due to the alleged seeds. As such, the counsel has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

8.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that to substantiate the defect in the seed, it was necessary to place on record report of Agriculture department/Expert person in the relevant field.  Complainant had option to get the filed inspected by making application before this Commission but he not availed for the same. In the absence of report of agriculture department, we are not able to conclude that the seeds were defective or not. The record so produced by complainant in support of his case also does not prove that the less germination and production was due to defective seeds by the OPs whereas it may be for the other reasons viz. water, soil, pesticides or weather etc. Hence, the complaint is devoid of merits and is dismissed with no order to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated:11.01.2024.

                    (Shashi Kiran Panwar)              (Saroj Bala Bohra)         

                                            Member              Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission, Bhiwani.