Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/459/2019

Parlahad Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ved Parkash Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Tandi

11 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                   Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                         Smt.Harisha Mehta and Dr.K.S.Nirania, Members

                                                        Complaint Case No.459 of 2019.                                                     Date of Instt.: 25.11.2019.                                                                 Date of Decision:  11.09.2023.

Perhlad Singh son of Shri Puran Singh resident of village Bisla Tehsil & District Fatehabad Harayna.

                                                                            ...Complainant

                                      Versus

Ved Parkash Jain & Sons, shop No.3 Hans Market, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Manager/Director.

                                                                                     ...Opposite party

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                 Sh.Pawan Tandi, Advocate for complainant.                                            Sh.Dinesh Gera, Advocate for Op. 

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

1.                          The facts pertaining to this complaint are that complainant had purchased Maize seeds (56 kgs) from Op for a consideration of Rs.5096/-  vide invoice No.469 dated 22.08.2019; that the complainant sown the purchased seeds in his land; that after passing some time, he noticed the height of the plants upto 2-1/2 feet, therefore, he intimated all this to the Op; that the officials of the OP after visiting the spot agreed the fault in seeds; that on the application of the complainant, the officials of the concerned Agriculture Department visited the spot and in their report, opined the loss upto 50-60 %; that the complainant requested the Op to make the loss good but it did not make the loss good. The act and conduct of the Op clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                          On notice, Op appeared and filed its reply wherein preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action and locus standi etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. National Seed Corporation Ltd. being manufacturer of the seed in question; that there is no loss whether any loss has been caused to the complainant ; that the inspection  in the area of 1.5 acre of field of the complainant was conducted but at the time of inspection, the officials of the concerned department opined that only in 0.5 acre, crop was standing and in one acre the crop of fodder maize had already been harvested by the complainant; that the Op had sold the seed in sealed packing condition in which it was purchased from National Seeds Corporation Company ltd.; that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the compliant has been made.

3.                          Both sides have filed their respective evidence on record. The complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op has tendered documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4. Thereafter, the evidence of the parties was closed. 

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                          Admittedly, the complainant had purchased maize seeds from OP as is depicted in Annexure C3. The fact harvesting of crop in one acre of land of the complainant is not disputed and this fact has also been mentioned by the officials of the concerned department in their report Annexure C1.  The complainant has come with the plea that the seeds allegedly sold by the Op to him were of poor quality; therefore, there are chances of probable loss to his crop upto 50-60 %. In support of his contentions he drew the attention of this Commission towards the Inspection Report Annexure C1.

6.                          On the other hand, the Op has come with the plea that the seeds were of superior quality and were within the permissible limit because the purity of the seed was 98.6 % with normal seedlings upto 90 %. In support of his contentions he drew the attention of this Commission towards Test Report and intimation Ex.R4.  Learned counsel for the Op has further argued that the present complaint is not maintainable and is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. from whom the alleged seeds were purchased by the Op and further sold to the complainant in the sealed packing condition in which the seeds were purchased.

7.                          The complainant is mainly relied upon the Inspection Report Annexure C1 to prove the allegation qua poor quality of seeds but this report reveals that the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer inspected and other officers had inspected 1.5 of land and further in this report they have opined possibility of loss upto the extent of 50 to 60 % in 0.5 acre of land as the crop in one acre of land has already been harvested by the complainant.  The perusal of this report further reveals that the Inspecting Officer have not mentioned the killa number, khewat number or the description of the land, which they had inspected at the spot. Nor, they have mentioned the name of the person/Op/representative of Op in whose presence, the land was inspected. It also reveals that no prior notice before inspection was ever served to the Op before visiting at the spot, therefore, we have no hitch to say that this report is not helpful to the case of the complainant as there is sufficient evidence on the file to show that the seeds in question were within the permissible limit to use as per Ex.R4 because the purity of the seed was 98.6 % with normal seedlings upto 90 % and it is not the case of the complainant that the said report is an fake being procured one, therefore, we have no other alternate but to believe on the same which remains un-rebutted.

8.                          Further, the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Op as the poor quality of seeds were sold to the complainant by Op, lies on the complainant but in the present complaint the complainant has come with bare allegations only without leading any substantive evidence  and it is settled law that the complainant has to stand on his own legs to prove his case without taking any benefits from the weaknesses of the other party by leading concrete and authentic evidence.  Further, the Op in its reply dated 03.02.2020 has taken specific plea that the present complaint is bad on account of mis-joinder of necessary party i.e. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. as party but despite that the complainant has not bothered to make it as a party despite the fact that it was manufacturer of the seeds allegedly purchased by him from OP.

9.                          Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice, on part of the Op, so as to make it liable in this matter to any extent. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.  In the given circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of this Commission, for perusal of parties herein. Case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated:11.09.2023.  

 

 

                                                                                     

      (K.S.Nirania)                     (Harisha Mehta)           (Rajbir Singh)                             Member                               Member                                    President