Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/22/2019

Gulab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singla Fertilizer - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kaushik

22 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.22 of 2019

                                                     Date of institution: 17.01.2019                                                         

                                                       Date of decision:22.02.2022.

                         

 

Gulab Singh son of Shri Mehar Singh resident of village Badoni Tehsil Pehowa District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

1.M/s Singla Fertilizers 66, 67, Opp.Anaj Mandi Gate, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.D.S.Agro Seeds at village Kaller Bhaini, Dakala Road, District Patiala, Punjab  through its Managing Director.

                                                                          ….Opposite parties.

                Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh.Rajesh Kaushik Advocate for the complainant .

                Sh.Anand Garg Advocate for the OPs.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been moved by Gulab Singh against M/s Singla Fertilizers etc-Opposite Parties.

2.             In the complaint it is stated that the complainant is agriculturist by profession. He purchased five bags of 10 Kg.each i.e. total 50 Kg.of paddy seeds @ Rs.50/- per kilogram i.e. total for Rs.1500/-. At that time Sushil Kajal son of Prem Chand and Kriszhan Lal son of Shri Khem Chand had also purchased the paddy seeds from the OP No.1 but at that time the OP No.1 has not issued any bill in the name of the complainant.  After sowing the paddy crop, the complainant demanded the bill but the OP no.1 refused to issue the same. It is further stated that the complainant had sown the said paddy seed in ten acres of his land and took all the precautions of sowing the crop and other subsequent precautions.   When the plants grow up, the complainant came to know that the seed is not of good quality rather it is mixed one and due to that reason, all the paddy plants have not matured. Some of the plants have grown up while some of the plants have not started growing which is clear indication of mixed seeds.  The complainant filed an application dated 17.10.2018 to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra for inspection of the fields. The officers from the Agriculture Department alongwith other Agriculture Experts visited the fields of the complainant on 18.10.2018 and gave report about the inspection and in the report, it has been observed that some plants have not  grown up due to mixing in the seed  to the extent  of 60% in the paddy seeds.  The rate of  quality PS 202 was prevailing in the market was 1680/- per quintal.  The complainant has suffered 18 quintal loss per acre which comes to 180 quintals and thus the total loss suffered by the complainant comes to Rs.3,02,400/-  which the Ops are liable to pay the same. The complaint requested them to pay the said amount but they refused. Thus by supplying the mixed seeds, the Ops have committed deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to pay the damages suffered by the complainant alongwith compensation for the mental harassment caused to the complainant.

 

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops. OP No.1 filed its written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has neither r purchased the seed of the OP No.2 of variety PAU 2021 paddy from the answering OP nor the OP No.1 has purchased the said variety from OP no.2.  The answering OP is doing business  of sale of seeds for the last many years and deals in sale of superior quality of seeds.  The answering OP used to issue proper bill to the customers for the seeds purchased by any customer. The complainant had not attached any bill with the present complaint through which it could be proved that the complainant had ever made any dealing with the answering OP.  It is the duty of every customer to demand the bill of the goods purchased by him from the market and also to demand the receipt regarding the payment made by him for the goods/items.  The complainant has filed the present complaint just to harass the answering OP.  Moreover, the success of crop depends upon the weather condition, suitability and fertility of the area, water and irrigation facility, quality of fertilizer and various other factors. Seeds in itself can ever be a sole determining factor. The success of paddy crop  is highly dependent on temperature, pest and disease attack and other climatic factors.   The complainant had also made a complaint to the agriculture department and the answering OP had given his explanation to the said department. The complainant had purchased a seed of variety Pussa 1509 and Pussa 1121 worth Rs.25000/- from the OP vide bill No.986 dated 10.6.2016 and the complainant had not made the payment of the same and when the answering OP requested the complainant to make the payment of the said seeds, then the complainant has filed the present complaint in order to grab the above said amount of Rs.25000/- of the answering OP. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services  on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.             The OP No.2 appeared and filed its separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to disclose the date, month and year of the purchase of alleged seed. The answering OP is indulged in sale of seeds for the last many years and till date no other complaint has been received. It is submitted that the success of crop depends upon the weather condition, suitability and fertility of the area, water and irrigation facility, quality of fertilizer and various other factors. Seeds in itself can ever be a sole determining factor. The success of paddy crop  is highly dependent on temperature, pest and disease attack and other climatic factors. It is also submitted that the success of paddy crop  is also  highly dependent on temperature, pest and disease attack and other climatic factors. It is submitted that the complainant had not placed on record any revenue record or any bill regarding the pesticides and fertilizers alleged to be  used for the germination of the alleged paddy crop. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and the complainant has filed the present complaint just to grab money from the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.4.              

 

5.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

 

6.             On the other hand, Ops in support of their case have filed  affidavits Ex.RW1/A and Ex.RW2/A and tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and closed their evidence.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that He purchased five bags of 10 Kg.each i.e. total 50 Kg.of paddy seeds @ Rs.50/- per kilogram i.e. total for Rs.1500/-. At that time Sushil Kajal son of Prem Chand and Kriszhan Lal son of Shri Khem Chand had also purchased the paddy seeds from the OP No.1 but at that time the OP No.1 has not issued any bill in the name of the complainant.  After sowing the paddy crop, the complainant demanded the bill but the OP no.1 refused to issue the same. It is further stated that the complainant had sown the said paddy seed in ten acres of his land and took all the precautions of sowing the crop and other subsequent precautions.   When the plants grow up, the complainant came to know that the seed is not of good quality rather it is mixed one and due to that reason, all the paddy plants have not matured. Some of the plants have grown up while some of the plants have not started growing which is clear indication of mixed seeds.  The complainant filed an application dated 17.10.2018 to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra for inspection of the fields. The officers from the Agriculture Department alongwith other Agriculture Experts visited the fields of the complainant on 18.10.2018 and gave report about the inspection and in the report, it has been observed that some plants have not  grown up due to mixing in the seed  to the extent  of 60% in the paddy seeds.  The rate of  quality PS 202 was prevailing in the market was 1680/- per quintal.   He learned counsel for the complainant has argued that though the bill is not placed on the file yet, the complainant has filed his affidavit in affirmation of his contentions. The complainant has suffered 18 quintal loss per acre which comes to 180 quintals and thus the total loss suffered by the complainant comes to Rs.3,02,400/-  which the Ops are liable to pay the same and as such there is deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

8.             On  the other hand, Learned counsel for the Ops while reiterating the submissions made in the  written statement has argued that the complainant never purchased the said seeds from the OP No.1 nor the OP No.2 sold the said seeds to the OP No.1. It is argued that bill showing the alleged purchase has not been placed on the file. The Ops have also argued that notice have been received by them from the Agriculture Department and reply of the said notice have been given by the Ops.  It is also argued that the complainant had purchased PUSA paddy crops from the OP No.1 on 10.5.2018 for Rs.25000/- and the said amount of Rs.25000/- has not been given by given by the complainant and when the OP No.1 demanded the amount of Rs.25000/- from the complainant, the complainant has filed the present complaint to grab the amount of Rs.25000/- of the OP No.1.  It is also argued that the dealing of said Rs.25000/- qua the sale of PUSA  paddy seeds is also  reflected in the balance sheet of the OP No.1. It is also argued on behalf of the Ops that the complainant has failed to establish the ownership of the land wherein the alleged crop of paddy sown. It is further argued that the alleged seeds were never sold by the  OP  No.1 to the complainant. Thus, it is argued that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

9.             After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case file, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. The complainant has failed to place on record copy of the bill whereby the said paddy seeds were allegedly purchased by him from the OP. Therefore, argument on behalf of the Ops that the complainant could not be able to prove the date and month of the alleged purchase of seeds is sustainable in the eyes of law.   The complainant moved the application Ex.C-1 to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra for inspection of the crops of paddy. Ex.C-3 is the report given by the Agriculture Officers whereby PSU 202 paddy crop was inspected.  The document Ex.C-4 placed on the file on behalf of the complainant seems to be fabricated one and the complainant  cannot get benefit of the said document because it seems to procured by placing the prints of DS Agro seeds on the paper head of the Ops. The argument of the learned counsel for the Ops that the complainant had to pay Rs.25000/- to the OP No.1 for purchase of seeds Pussa 1509 and Pussa 1121 also seems to be plausible because this argument of the learned counsel for the Ops is supported by the affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Chinu Singla and Ex.RW2/A of Rakesh Kumar together supported with the trading sheet of the firm of the OP No.1 wherein  amount of Rs.25,000/- is shown due against the complainant.  Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3 are replies of the Ops to the application  Ex.R-5 issued  by the  DDA, Kurukshetra stating therein that the complainant has to pay Rs.25000/- as cost of paddy crop  purchased by the complainant and on that account the present complaint has been filed against them. Further vide Ex.R-7 letter of agriculture department to OP No.2 asking it to submit all the bills of seeds supplied to OP No.1 and reply of the same was given by the OP No.2 vide Ex.R-9. The contention of the complainant’s counsel that though the bill is not placed on the file by the complainant, yet  the contents of the complaint are supported by the affidavit Ex.CW1/A of complainant, affidavit of Sushil Kajal Ex.CW2/A and affidavit of Krishan Lal Ex.CW3/A but this argument of the learned counsel for the complainant is also not tenable because counter affidavits  Chinu Singla Ex.RW1/A and affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Ex/.RW2/A have also been filed to rebut the contention of the complainant.

 

10.            In view our above discussion and findings, we are of the view that the complainant could not be able to prove himself as consumer as envisaged under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,  because neither the complainant has placed on the file bill for alleged purchase of seeds nor transaction of amount for the alleged sale is proved.  However, from the report of  Agriculture Department,  Rx.C-3 is proved but the Ops cannot be held liable for the same especially when the sale by the Ops to the complainant of the alleged seeds is not proved. Therefore, no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops is established and as such the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.

 

                In view of our above discussion and findings, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such same is hereby dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in the open Commission .

Dated: 22.02.2022.                                              President.

 

                        Member             Member.