Haryana

StateCommission

A/388/2015

UJJWAL SEED PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER AND ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN CHAUHAN

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                       

First Appeal No  :      388 of 2015

Date of Institution:      28.04.2015

Date of Decision :       30.11.2015

 

 

 

Ujjwal Seeds Private Limited, 206, Express Tower, Azadpur Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi-33, through its Marketing Manager Shri Naresh Nagpal.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.3

Versus

 

1.      Surender Singh s/o Sh. Sube Singh, Resident of Village Shamri Buran, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Gulab Beej Bhandar, Main Bazar, Gohana, District Sonipat through its Proprietor.

3.      Tycon Seed Tech Khasa No.894, New Extended Lal Dora, near Shila Buwa Mandir, Government Seed Farm Road, Alipur, Delhi, through its Proprietor/Director.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 &2

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                      

Argued by:          Shri Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Surender Singh-respondent No.1/complainant with his counsel Shri Rahul Jaswal.

(Service of respondents No.2 & 3 dispensed with)

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing this appeal, Ujjwal Seeds Private Limited-Opposite Party No.3 questioned the correctness and legality of order dated March 24^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.401 of 2013.  Vide impugned order, the District Forum held the appellant and Tycon Seed Tech-opposite party No.2 (respondent No.3 herein) deficient in service for selling defective carrot seed to Surender Singh-complainant/respondent No.1.

2.      The complainant-respondent No.1 purchased 30 Kgs. carrot seed, that is, 15 Kgs of Ujjwal variety and 15 Kgs of Tycon variety from Gulab Beej Bhandar-opposite party No.1 (respondent No.2 herein), the authorized dealer of opposite parties No.2 and 3, vide receipt No.326 dated September 27^th, 2012 (Exhibit C-2). For ready reference, the description of the receipt is reproduced as under:-

Name	Variety	Quantity	Rate	Total
Surender Singh	Ujjwal	15 Packets	Rs.240/-	Rs.3600/-
	Tycon	15 Packets	Rs.210/-	Rs.3150/-

 

3.      The complainant sowed the seed in his fields.  When the crop was at vegetative stage, it was found that the seed supplied to him was defective as the carrots were not of standard size, that is, the root was long but not with uniform diameter. The complainant suffered loss of his crop as the seed was not pure. He approached the opposite parties to compensate him on account of loss of his crop. The opposite parties did not pay heed to his complaint on the ground that the seed supplied was tested and approved by the Seed Certification Agency.

4.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

5.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing their respective replies denying the averments made by the complainant.

6.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.1.00 lac, that is Rs.50,000/- each by appellant/opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.2 to the complainant. 

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that burden to prove the seed to be defective was upon the complainant.  The complainant did not get the seed properly analyzed, so, there was no basis for holding that damage to the crop was due to the defective seed. 

8.      The best piece of evidence to prove that seed was defective is the report Exhibit C-3 prepared by an agriculture expert, that is, Assistant Project Officer, Sonipat.  In the report, it was stated that 90% of the carrot was thin and was not saleable in the market.  The opposite parties did not lead any evidence in rebuttal to the report Exhibit C-3 and therefore the same cannot be discarded. So, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is repelled.

9.      It is cardinal principle of law that ordinarily the burden of proving the fact rests on the party who asserts the affirmative issue and not on the party who denies the same. However, there is distinction between the phrase burden of proof and onus of proof. Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India while clearing the said distinction in A. Raghavamma & Anr. Vs. A. Chenchamma & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 136 held that there is essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof. Burden of proof lies on the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence.

10.    By placing on record the report of agriculture expert Exhibit C-3, the complainant has discharged the initial onus to prove that the seeds in question were substandard and defective. So, it was for the appellant/opposite parties to produce the seeds of same batch number and variety before the District Forum with a request to send the same to the seed testing laboratory but they failed. Therefore, the report submitted by the agriculture expert cannot be discarded.

11.    In view of the above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

12.    The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 30.11.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL