District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran (Punjab)
Consumer complaint No : 77 of 2014
Date of Institution : 7.11.2014
Date of Decision : 30.6.2015
Mehal Singh son of Dyal Singh resident of village Sur Singh Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran
…Complainant
Versus
- Super Gold Karnal Seed Farm, Amritsar Bye- Pass, Chabal Chowk, Tarn Taran, through its Manager,
- Super Gold Karnal Seed Farm, Radhe Krishna Farm house, Pal Nagar, Karnal, Haryana, through its M.D.
- Agriculture Officer, Block Bhikhiwind, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh.H.S. Sandhu Advocate counsel for Complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 exparte on 26.5.2015
Opposite party No. 2 exparte on 18.12.2014
Opposite party No. 3 exparte on 18.12.2014
Quorum: Sh. J.S.Khushdil, President.
Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member.
Smt.Jaswinder Kaur Dolly, Member
(Sh.J,S.Khushdil, President)
- The complainant Mehal Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against Super Gold Karnal Seed Farm, Amritsar Bye- Pass, Chabal Chowk, Tarn Taran, through its Manager (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Party No. 1’), Super Gold Karnal Seed Farm, Radhe Krishna Farm house, Pal Nagar, Karnal, Haryana, through its M.D (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Party No. 2’) and Agriculture Officer, Block Bhikhiwind, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Party No. 3’) supported by various documents levelling allegations of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1, 2.
- As per the version of the complainant, he is a farmer and owns and cultivates 10 acres of land which is a source of his livelihood. The complainant purchased 50 Kgs seeds of 1509 Pusa Variety of Basmati from the opposite party No. 1 vide Bill No. 1529 dated 20.5.2014 for Rs. 3,000/- and Bill No. 446 dated 11.4.2014 for Rs. 2,000/-. The packing of the seeds was of 5 Kgs and 10 Kgs. Seeds were sown in 10 Acres of land of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant spent huge amount on ploughing fields, on fertilizers and on transplanting the saplings in the field and used pesticides and herbicides and also made payment of wages to the labourer. After two months from transplanting of paddy in the fields, the complainant noticed that the paddy crop standing in the fields was not of the same variety but mixture of different varieties as the plants standing in the fields were of different sizes and nature. The complainant then approached the opposite party No. 1 who assured the complainant to send his expert to inspect the field of the complainant, but no such expert was sent by the opposite party No. 1. The repeated visits of the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 yielded no result. The complainant approached the print media which published news on 2.10.2014 regarding the mixture of different variety of the seed sold by the opposite party No. 1 by saying it of 1509 Pusa type and also regarding growth of this mixture in the fields. The complainant also approached the opposite party No. 3 on 2.10.2014 and filed a complaint regarding defective seeds sold by opposite party No. 1 who deputed Gurdeep Singh ADO to inspect the fields of the complainant and Gurdeep Singh ADO inspected the fields of the complainant and submitted his report No. 287 dated 10.10.2014 to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Tarn Taran. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 was present at the spot in the fields of the complainant when Gurdeep Singh A.D.O inspected the fields of the complainant as the opposite party No. 3 called the opposite party No. 1 through notice. After obtaining the report of the department of the opposite party No. 3, the complainant visited the opposite party No. 1 and demanded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- i.e. difference in earnings due to loss suffered by him as well as defective seeds sold by the opposite party No. 1 by saying and describing the seeds variety of 1509 Pusa by receiving Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant for the same. According to complainant, cause of action accrued on 20.10.2014 when he approached the opposite party No. 1 and thereafter, when opposite party No. 1 refused to pay any compensation to the complainant. The complainant, therefore claims himself ‘consumer’ of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and also alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The following relief has been claimed by the complainant against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2:-
(A) Rs. 2,50,000/- being loss of earning from the yield of paddy due to defective and mixed seeds.
(B) Rs. 1,00,000/- being compensation for causing harassment
(C) Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
and prayed to accept the complaint.
- Notice of this complaint was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not appear in the Forum despite the proper and valid service. Therefore, opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte on 26.5.2015. Similarly, opposite parties No. 2 and 3 were also proceeded against exparte on 18.12.2014.
4 The complainant in order to substantiate his claim tendered in to evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith following documents
Ex. C-2 Self attested copy of Bill
Ex. C.3 Self attested copy of report of Agriculture officer
Block, Bhikhiwind
Ex. C.4 Self attested copy of application dated 2.10.2014.
Ex. C.5 Self attested copy of bill dated 11.4.2014
Mark A News paper cutting
and closed the evidence.
5 We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant exparte and also perused the evidence produced on record with the assistance of ld. counsel for the complainant. However, written arguments have not been filed by the complainant despite availing sufficient opportunities.
6 Ld. counsel for the complainant has, first of all, referred to the contents of the complaint and then to the corroborating evidence. It is submitted that the complainant is owning and cultivating 10 Acres of land. In that land, he had sown 50 Kgs. of Basmati seed of 1509 Pusa Variety which he purchased from the opposite parties No. 1, 2 vide bill No. 1529 dated 20.5.2014 for Rs. 3,000/- (Ex. C.2) and bill No. 446 dated 11.4.2014 for Rs. 2,000/- (Ex. C.5). In all, he paid Rs. 5,000/- to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. It was contended that the complainant had incurred heavy expenses in nurturing the fields. But after two months of transplantation of Paddy in his fields, the complainant noticed that plants were not of same variety but mixture of different variety because same were different in sizes and nature. Ld. counsel for complainant further argued that it was brought in to the notice of the opposite parties No 1 who assured to send the expert to his fields but no expert has been sent. Ultimately the complainant lodged a complaint with the Agricultural Officer who sought report through Gurdeep Singh ADO and he submitted his report No. 287 dated 10.10.2014 Ex. C.3. It was contended that above inspection was done in the presence of opposite party No. 1. Ld. counsel for complainant urged before this Forum that complainant has suffered a huge loss i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/- besides under going mental agony and harassment and then, he was forced to approach this Forum to seek the appropriate relief under law. Ld. counsel for the complainant has prayed to award the relief as claimed by the complainant. He has also placed reliance on M/s Dharam Pal and Sons & Others Vs Som Parkash 2014(3) CLT 187 (NC).
7 We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by ld. counsel for complainant. The complainant claims that he is a farmer and owning and cultivating land of 10 Acres. He purchased 50 Kgs of seeds variety of 1509 Pusa from opposite party No. 1 against two bills bearing No. 1529 dated 20.5.2014 for Rs. 3,000/- and bill No. 446 dated 11.4.2014 for Rs. 2,000/- and in all, he paid Rs. 5,000/-. According to the version of the complainant, he has sown that seeds in his fields but after two months he noticed that plants were not of same nature and variety. The complainant further averred that he approached the opposite party No. 1, who assured that he would send the expert to the fields of the complainant, but no expert was ever sent by the opposite party No. 1. Therefore, the complainant approached the Agriculture officer with a request to inspect the fields of the complainant. Accordingly, Sh. Gurdeep Singh ADO inspected the fields of the complainant in the presence of opposite party No. 1 and submitted his report Ex. C.3 on the file. The claimants alleged to have suffered the loss of Rs. 2,50,000/- being the difference of earning by sowing defective seeds. He also claimed compensation and litigation expenses. He has also deposed affidavit Ex. C.1 on the file and also proved certain documents placed on record mentioned above. It is notable point that the complainant has neither examined any of the officials from the office of the opposite party No. 3 nor Sh. Gurdeep Singh ADO who had allegedly inspected fields of the complainant and submitted the report. We have perused the report Ex. C.3 dated 10.10.2014. The inspection report dated 10.10.2014 appears to have done when the Paddy crop was fit for harvesting. It was mentioned in the report that there is mixture of different variety to the extent of 50-50%. It has also been mentioned in the report that the average yield of 1509 Pusa Variety of Basmati is 15.7 Quintals per acre. It is notable point that the reporting officer has neither given the basis for his report nor attached any supporting document on which he arrived at the said conclusion. It is averred that the seeds were purchased on 20.5.2014 and 11.4.2014. It is not mentioned in the complaint as on which date the plantation and transplantation was done. At the time of planting/transplanting of seeds the complainant could notice the variations at the initial stage and could lodge the report with the opposite party No. 1 to send the expert or to replace the seeds, but he has not done so. The complainant has admitted that said paddy crop was fit for harvesting upto 10.10.2014 and he has harvested the same. There is no corroborative evidence on the file except the affidavit of complainant which is self serving. Identically, the application Ex. C.4 moved to Chief Agriculture Officer Bhikhiwind is of the complainant. The publication of print media in the news paper is also what so ever must have been informed by the complainant. This Forum requires, the complainant to prove his version by leading cogent evidence which could be sufficient to substantiate the claim. We have further aware that this Forum has to decide the matter in summery manner. At the time it does not mean that party should not bring evidence what so ever the party can produce or get proved through this Forum. We have also taken in to consideration the judicial pronouncement relied upon by the ld. counsel for the complainant which is with regard to defective seeds. Each judicial pronouncement has its own facts and circumstances. We are of the view that the authority cited by complainant, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
8 We have further noticed that the complainant was not vigilant to observe the plants at the initial stage when the same were being transplanted in the main fields. Had he been vigilant then he would have save his money and energy and could replace the seeds by approaching the opposite party No. 1 or through any lawful authority. It is noticed that there is no corroborative evidence as to what loss the complainant has suffered and what was difference of earnings. In the report it has been mentioned that per acre yield of Pusa Punjab Basmati 1509 is 15.7 Quintal. In this way, if the complainant was having 10 acre of land the total yield would have been 10 x 15.7 Quintals = 157 Quintals. The complainant had sown the mixture of variety of seeds, but the complainant has not proved in evidence that how much yield of the crops he has received and how much money he received from the harvested crops and he has not proved on record the difference of loss. The complainant has, thus, ripen the fruit of harvested paddy by selling it in the market and now he is claiming Rs. 2,50,000/- being difference in earning. It is notable point that the complainant has not placed on record any receipt of amount or any proof about the rate of Pusa Basmati 1509 at the relevant time. It appears that the complainant has deliberately withheld all vital evidence from this Forum and adverse inference has to be drawn against him. We have further noted the latest judicial pronouncement II(2015) CPJ 356 (NC) Udya Nath Matho Vs Nand Lal Prashad on this subject, whereby case of the complainant is dismissed in the identical case. It is further not clear whether the complainant has sowed the same seeds allegedly purchased by him from Opposite Party No.1. Further, there is no evidence on record that the complainant was owning and cultivating 10 acres of land. No copy of jamabandi or khasra girdawri has been produced or proved on record by the complainant in this regard. Thus, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Forum.
Dated: 30.6.2015
(J.S.Khushdil)
President
(Jaswinder Kaur) (R.D.Sharma)
Member Member
