State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ram Narayan vs Sigeda India on 10 August, 2015
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1742/2013 (Arising out of order dated 24.08.2012 passed in C.C. No. 86/2010 by the District Forum, Neemuch) RAMNARAYAN S/O LALURAM DHAKAD. ... APPELLANT. Versus CHIEF OFFICER, SYNGENTA INDIA LTD & BALAJI BEEJ BHANDAR. ... RESPONDENTS BEFORE: HON'BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI S. D. AGRAWAL : MEMBER O R D E R 10.08.2015 Shri J. P. Chandravanshi, learned counsel for the appellant. As per Shri Subhash Jain :
This is an appeal filed by the complainant against the order dated 24.08.2012 passed in C.C.No.86/2010 by the District Forum, Neemuch whereby his complaint is dismissed.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant/appellant on 26.01.2010 purchased 50 pouch of F1 Hybrid Watermelon seeds @ Rs.370/- per pouch total weighing one kilogram eight hundred grams for Rs.13,320/- for sowing in his field which as alleged by him were of sub-standard quality and were not given good fruits and he suffered loss. He therefore filed a complaint claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest thereon @ 2% p.a.
3. The opposite party/respondent resisted the complaint admitting that though the seeds were purchased but the complainant did not follow the instructions while sowing the seeds, proper pesticides and fertilizers were not used and irrigation was not done. The complainant never reported them that the yield was poor therefore prayed for dismissing the complaint.
4. The District Forum after hearing counsel for parties and going through the record found no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent and find that the complainant failed to prove -2- his case thus dismissed the complaint. The complainant has therefore filed this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on admission.
6. On going through the record we find that it is an admitted fact that the appellant purchased seeds of watermelon manufactured by respondent no.1, from respondent no.2 but he failed to prove that the land was properly prepared for sowing seeds, irrigation was properly done and proper quantity of fertilizer and pesticides were used. The appellant also failed to establish that the seeds purchased by him were of sub-standard quality by filing any report from the Seed Testing Laboratory. Germination of seeds would depend upon several other factors such as climate-condition, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, quality and quantity of fertilizer and pesticides. The appellant also failed to establish that the crop had suffered due to poor germination of seeds. The appellant also did not inform the respondents regarding poor germination or poor yield of fruits. He claimed that he informed the respondents who depute their field officer Dhumalji and Govind Prajapat for inspection of crop but the respondents denied the fact that no such persons are in their employment. There is also nothing on record if they could have inspected the field they must have filed their report which is not on record. No expert opinion or testing report from Seed Testing Laboratory is filed. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant.
7. We do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the District Forum. The appeal is therefore dismissed summarily at the admission stage itself.
(Subhash Jain) (S.D.Agrawal) Presiding Member Member