Haryana

Jind

026

Rajesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Bala Ji beej Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S. Dhillon

23 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 26 of 2013

   Date of Institution: 4.2.2013

   Date of final order: 23.2.2015

Rajesh son of Dalip Singh son of Fathiya resident of village Baroda, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.  

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. Shri Balaji Beej Bhandar anaj mandi gate, Uchana(Jind) through its proprietor.
2. M/s Shanti Fertilizer and Chemicals, 4 Mile Stone, Sirsa road, Hissar (Haryana) through its  proprietor/partner.
3. Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. registered office 27 New Cotton Market Layout Nagpur-440018(India) through its Partner/Managing Director.

                                                         …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member

                              

Present: Sh. S.S. Dhillon, Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.1.

             Sh. J.K. Redhu Adv. Adv. for opposite party No.3.

             Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte.

            

ORDER:

            The brief facts in the complaint are that  the complainant is an agriculturist by profession  and had purchased one packet of 10 Kg. Pusa Basmati 1121 seed for a sum of Rs.600/- vide bill No.1239 dated

                        Rajesh Vs. Shri Balaji Beej etc.

                                  …2…

2.6.2012 from opposite party No.1, opposite party No.2 is whole seller and opposite party No.3 is manufacturer of the above said seeds. The complainant sown the paddy seeds in his two acres of land and after germination he found that there was off type plants in the crop, some were early maturing in nature, some were remained green at the time of harvesting, rest were normal type and some plants were of late variety.   The seed was misbranded and was of inferior quality.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1  and lodged complaint about inferior quality of seed and requested him  to give a compensation but the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed on the request of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint  to Sub Divisional Agriculture,  Narwana and officers of  Sub Divisional Agriculture, Narwana visited the field of complainant on 1.10.2012 and team of agricultural officers reported that 30 to 34% plants were off type, inclusive of permissible limit i.e. 7-10 days early maturing in nature. Due to supply of inferior quality of paddy seeds, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.48,700/-. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 48,700/- as loss of paddy seeds, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 3 have appeared and filed the separate written statement.  Opposite party No.1 has contended in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not

                        Rajesh Vs. Shri Balaji Beej etc.

                                  …3…

maintainable in the present forum; the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is contended that the complainant has not filed the copy of jamabandi and girdawari on record to establish that he has cultivated and sown  the paddy seeds in his land. The complainant has not produced J-Form. The answering opposite party sold the seed in sealed and packed condition and question of being the seed of inferior quality does not arise at all. The complainant might have mixed some other seed for completing its quantity as the complainant has purchased less seed for his two acres of land. No notice prior to inspection the field of complainant was given to the  answering opposite party. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.

3.     Opposite parties No. 3 has contended that the complainant has  purchased the seeds for commercial purpose and is not consumer of the answering opposite party. No opportunity is given to the answering opposite party to justify or explain if any adverse remark.   The field of the complainant was inspected in the back of answering opposite party. The answering opposite party sold the seed to its dealer and there is no privacy of contract in between the complainant and answering opposite party. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in

 

                        Rajesh Vs. Shri Balaji Beej etc.

                                  …4…

service on the part of the answering  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.

4.     Notice issued to opposite party No.2 received back duly served but none has come present on behalf of opposite party No.2. Hence, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 19.3.2013.

5.     In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1,  cash memo Ex. C-2, copy of application Ex. C-3, inspection report Ex. C-4, copy of jamabandi Ex. C-5 and copy of  document Ex. OP-6  and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the  affidavit of Surender Kumar Ex. OP-1, copy of invoice Ex. OP-2, affidavit of  Navin Partap Singh Ex. OP-3 and copies of  statement Ex. OP-4 and OP-5 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant had purchased one packet of 10 Kg Pusa Basmati 1121 seed vide bill No.1239 dated 2.6.2012 for a sum of Rs.600/- from opposite party No.1 Ex. C-2, the opposite party No.2 is whole-seller and opposite party No.3 is manufacturer of the above said seeds. The above said seed was sown by the complainant in his two acres of land and after germination of plants, the complainant noticed that there was off type plants in the crop. The seed was misbranded and was of inferior quality. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Narwana and lodged his complaint, upon which;  officers of Agriculture Department visited the field of complainant on

                        Rajesh Vs. Shri Balaji Beej etc.

                                  …5…

1.10.2012 and reported that 30 to 34% plants were off type and due to supply of inferior quality of paddy seeds, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.48,700/-. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged.

7.     On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has averred that the answering opposite party sold the seed in sealed and packed condition and question of being the seed of inferior quality does not arise at all. The complainant might have mixed some other seed for completing its quantity as the complainant had purchased less seed for his two acres of land. No notice was given to the answering opposite party at the time of inspection of the field of the complainant by the officers of the Agriculture Department. The complainant has not filed the copy of girdwari on record to establish that he has cultivated and sown the paddy seed in his field and also not produced J-Form. The opposite party No.3 has denied all the allegations leveled by the complainant and denied any deficiency in service on the part of  answering opposite party  and dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.

8.     Ex. OP-4 and OP-5 support the case of opposite parties that the seed was of 98% purity. The complainant in his complaint has not mentioned the khasra and killa number of the land in which the paddy seed was sown by him. The Inspection Committee of the experts has not been constituted according to the instruction of Govt. by the Agriculture Department. The complainant has not produced copy of khasra girdwari on record to establish that he has cultivated and sown the paddy seed in his field. The complainant has not produced J-Form

                        Rajesh Vs. Shri Balaji Beej etc.

                                  …6…

in which the variety of crop, its rate and quantity are mentioned. It cannot be disputed that germination of seed depends on various agro climatic conditions, type of soil, water, irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients and use of proper fertilizers. Thus in the absence of any cogent evidence it cannot be said that the seed sold by the opposite parties to the complainant was inferior quality

9.     For the above said reasons no deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.  Parties will bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 23.2.2015

                                                                 President,

          Member                         District Consumer Disputes                                                                  Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present: Sh. J.N. Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. P.K. Batra, Adv. for  Opposite Parties No.1.

             Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte.

 

            Remaining arguments heard. To come up on 15.11.2013 for orders.

                                                                President,

                Member       Member                DCDRF, Jind

                                                                  12.11.2013

 

Present: Sh. J.N. Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. P.K. Batra, Adv. for  Opposite Parties No.1.

             Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte.

            

             Order announced, vide our separate order of even date. The complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room. 

                                                                President,

                Member      Member                DCDRF, Jind

                                                                15.11.2013