Haryana

Karnal

CC/459/2020

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Technico Agri Sciences Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Kumar

12 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No. 459 of 2020

                                                      Date of instt.27.10.2020

                                                      Date of Decision:12.02.2024

 

Satish Kumar son of Shri Bhola Ram, resident of house no.475, Sector-6, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Technico Agri Sciences Limited, SCO 835, 1^st and 2^nd floor, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh-160101 through its Managing Director.
2. Shivam Cold Store, village Samora, District Karnal through its Manager.

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

               

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Suman Singh……Member

 

Argued by:   Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

                     Sh. Simranjit Singh, counsel  for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the complainant purchased the seed of potato worth Rs.1,18,560/- from the OP no.1 and it was assured by the OP no.1 that they will purchase the potatoes from the complainant. The potato was of good quality and after uprooting the same, complainant sold the said potatoes to the OP no.1 in 683 bags. The potato was sent to OP no.1 was of better quality and was not infelicitous and the complainant had also returned all the bags to the OP no.1, however, the OP o.1 intentionally and deliberately did not pay the amount of Rs.64000/- to the complainant alleging that some potato of the complainant was infelicitous and the OP no.1 also deducted the amount of Rs.4350/- alleging that 150 empty bags were not returned by the complainant. Besides this, the OP no.1 also did not pay the bonus of Rs.2/- on per KG potato to the complainant and also did not pay the freight charges @ Rs.25/- per bag for sending the potatoes to the store of the OP no.2 and the price of the potato was Rs.8/- per kg. The complainant requested the OP no.1 to pay the abovesaid amount but OP did not pay the same and lastly refused to pay the said amount to the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant was provided potatoes seed by paying Rs.1,18,560/- as security deposit and he had planted the same in about two hectares of land. OP no1 provided him how and visited the site several times and strip test was conducted in January, 2020. As per strip test total yield of multiplied seed potatoes was 51.68 metric tons. Complainant returned only 683 bags whereas as per strip test, he had to return about 1076 bags. Complainant returned 394 bags less and sold the same in open market inspite of reminders and requests by the OP no.1. It is the complainant who has committed the default by not returning the entire yield of 51.68 metric tons and he returned only 32.68 metric ton and he did not return the remaining 18.9 metric ton inspite of requests and reminders made by the OP no.1. OP no.1 after giving him due notice on 25.03.2020, deducted the amount of Rs.64000/- from his payment and also payment of Rs.4350/- of 150 bags which was not returned by the complainant. It is wrong and denied that OP no.1 did not pay Rs.2/- per kg to the complainant by way of bonus and did not pay freight charges @ 25/- per kg for sending the potatoes to the store. It is further pleaded that as per agreement all payments have been made to the OP no.1 and bonus as per agreement has been adjusted and once he did not return the entire yield crop, then OP no.1 was left with no alternative except to recover the cost of seed potatoes corresponding to the yield of multiplied seed potatoes not returned by the complainant in accordance with the Seed Multiplication Agreement signed with him. Accordingly, amount was deducted from his payment and there is no default or deficiency on the part of the OP no.1. Rather, it is the complainant who has played fraud with the OP no.1 by selling the crop in open market, inspite of the agreement to return the entire yield of multiplied seed potatoes to OP no.1. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of account statement Ex.C1, form of stock transfer advice Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 15.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Neeraj Piplani Ex.OP1/A, copy of agreement dated 30.09.2019 Ex.OP1, copy of letter dated 25.03.2020 Ex.OP2, strip test Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 12.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued complainant purchased the potatoes seed worth Rs.1,18,560/- from the OP no.1 and it was assured by the OP no.1 that they will purchase the potatoes from the complainant. Complainant sold the said 683 bags potatoes to the OP no.1. The potato was sent to OP no.1 was of better quality but the OP no.1 intentionally and deliberately did not pay the amount of Rs.64000/- to the complainant alleging that some potato of the complainant was infelicitous and the OP no.1 also deducted the amount of Rs.4350/- alleging that 150 empty bags were not returned by the complainant whereas all the empty bags were return to the OPs. The OP no.1 also did not pay the bonus of Rs.2/- on per kg potato to  and also did not pay the freight charges @ Rs.25/- per bag for sending the potatoes to the store of the OP no.2 and the price of the potato was Rs.8/- per kg. The complainant requested the OP no.1 to pay the abovesaid amount but OP did not pay the same and lastly refused to pay the said amount to the complainant.

8.             Learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant was provided potatoes seed by paying Rs.1,18,560/- as security deposit and he had planted the same in about two hectares of land. As per strip test total yield of multiplied seed potatoes was 51.68 metric tons. The complainant has committed the default by not returning the entire yield of 51.68 metric tons and he returned only 32.68 metric ton and sold the remaining 18.9 metric ton in open market. OP no.1 after giving him due notice on 25.03.2020, deducted the amount of Rs.64000/- from his payment and also payment of Rs.4350/- of 150 bags which was not returned by the complainant. As per Multiplication Agreement complainant is bound to return the entire yield of multiplied seed potatoes to OP no.1 but complainant did not do so. All payments have been made to the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant purchased the seeds of potatoes from the OPs. It is also admitted that an Agreement was executed between the parties. It is also admitted complainant has returned only 683 bags of potatoes to the OPs.

11.           Both the parties have relied upon the agreement Ex.OP1 dated 30.09.2019 and as per the said agreement, complainant was bound to return the entire yield to the OP no.1. As per strip test Result for 2020 of complainant Ex.OP3, the total yield of seed potatoes was 51.68 metric tons but complainant has returned only 32.68 metric ton to the OP no.1 and the remaining 18.9 metric ton has not return by the complainant the reasons best known to him. It appears that complainant has sold/withheld the remaining potatoes with him. It is not the case of the complainant the strip test report Ex.OP3 is not as per the actual yield. Complainant has also failed to prove that OP has not paid bonus of Rs.2/- per kg, freight charges @ 20/- per bag and price of the potatoes @ Rs.8/-per kg. Complainant himself was on fault for not supplying the entire yield to the OP no.1 as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:12.02.2024                                              

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)   

      Member                       Member